A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 20, 2004, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving), and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the Incheon District Court on March 18, 2009.

On June 24, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.098% in blood, driven a B L-related car at around 10:30%, and proceeded with approximately 3 km from the front of the G-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Seoul, Twit-ro located in 111 as a sports hall to the front road of about 4:15 east-gu, Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. A previous conviction: Application of a written inquiry and a written reply;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the fact that his/her mistake is repented, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Order to Attend the Course is that the Defendant, in spite of two times of having violated the Road Traffic Act and several times of offenses, even though he had committed the instant crime in violation of the Road Traffic Act, and even if there were several times of offenses, such crime is not good. However, the Defendant, as the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, was driving a vehicle for the purpose of his work due to the erroneous judgment that the previous drinking is less likely, and the Defendant did not go against other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, but did not proceed to violate other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the amount of alcohol concentration in blood was relatively relatively high, the following facts were divided, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, etc. were determined as above by taking into account all the circumstances under which