A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 3, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, in the support of the Daejeon District Court, and on February 8, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two months for a period of six months.

Although the Defendant had had a record of driving under the influence of alcohol twice again, on September 1, 2015, at around 01:20, the Defendant driven B K5 cars under the influence of alcohol with approximately 300 meters alcohol concentration of 0.145% from the front day of the National Bank of Pyeongtaek-dong, Pyeongtaek-dong National Bank to the front day of the Dong-dong Korean Industrial Complex at the same time.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who was a drunk driver twice or more, driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving, and a report on the circumstances of drinking drivers;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (reports on criminal records and attachment of judgments);

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation, community service order, and order to attend a lecture, Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, even though the defendant had three times the records of punishment for the same kind of drinking driving, the responsibility of the crime of driving the instant vehicle is very heavy in light of the fact that the defendant drives the instant vehicle in a considerable drinking state.

However, the fact that the defendant acknowledges the facts charged in the instant case, reflects his mistake, and does not repeat the crime, raises pregnant wife and her children, the circumstance where a substitute driver was absent before driving under the influence of alcohol was confirmed, and there was no record of punishment for the same kind of mistake since 201, and the defendant's age, character, behavior, family environment, etc. are also recognized.