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 July 28, 2011, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court, and a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime at the Incheon District Court on December 22, 2014.

On June 16, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.092% during blood transfusion, driven the Cmpt vehicle owned by himself/herself, and proceeded with approximately 100 meters from the front of the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Office, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon to the front of the Cheongbu 1 Dong Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, investigation reports (Attachment of the same criminal record and summary order of the suspect), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached thereto;

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 a Vehicle is that the Defendant, in spite of the past criminal records of two times of crime and several times of violation of the Road Traffic Act, was driving a vehicle under the influence of the instant crime. However, the Defendant used an agent driving in the event of usual drinking, but the Defendant used an agent driving in the event of the instant case, but was requested to move the vehicle by repeating the vehicle during the instant round-up process, including the workplace club fees and half week, on the day of the instant case. The Defendant was not going to violate other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the driving distance was relatively short, and the driving distance was relatively relatively short, and the blood alcohol concentration was relatively relatively high, followed by his mistake or his mistake, and cancelled the registration of the vehicle in possession.