A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 9, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's net support on May 9, 201, and on April 19, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a suspended sentence of three years for the same court on July 5, 2012.

On March 2, 2014, at around 21:08, the Defendant driven a vehicle of 3rd-hurghn with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.11% from the front road of the Manyang-si to the front road of the Dongdong-dong, located in the Manyang-si Manyang-si Manyang-si Manyang-si, in a state of under the influence of alcohol content of about 1k.11%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. A certificate of notification of measurement of drinking alcohol;

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records: Criminal records, etc., inquiry reports, investigation reports (report attached to the same type of force and summary order), judgment, and application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to one summary order;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant reflects the instant crime and again refrain from driving under the influence of alcohol while failing to drive under the influence of alcohol. The most supporting the family is the reason for sentencing favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of suspension of the execution due to drinking driving, as well as the same criminal records and several times.

The defendant, even though he was under the suspended sentence, is driving under the influence of alcohol again despite being under the suspended sentence, and the sentence on the defendant is judged inevitable, so it is so decided as per Disposition.