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

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) by the Seoul Northern District Court. On August 22, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court.

On September 2, 2017, at around 04:50, the Defendant driven a vehicle with a alcohol content of approximately 0.100% in blood while under the influence of alcohol at around 500 meters in the section of approximately 500 meters from the French land near Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu to the street of 3rd-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Investigation report (Inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (the same type of criminal history) statute;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant was punished twice due to drinking driving as stated in the judgment in the judgment, and that the Defendant once again driven a motor vehicle without any particular warning even though his/her driver’s license was revoked on August 29, 2014, and that the Defendant’s state of driving falls under a state of drinking according to general standards.

However, the defendant did not repeat the crime of this case in response to the crime of this case, the defendant was not punished more than a fine due to drinking driving, and there was no other criminal record, and the defendant's age, sex, family environment, motive for the crime, and crime.