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 October 17, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court, and on August 26, 2014, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime.

On August 31, 2017, the Defendant driven a car with approximately KRW 3 km from the front day of the 117-1 GS25 GS25 Si-si, Seopo-si, Sungpo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si to the front day of the 43-1 GS25 Sungsan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant has been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol twice even though he has violated the prohibition of driving in the state of liquor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The circumstantial report of the driver employed at the main place;

1. The ledger using the drinkator, on-site photographs;

1. Investigation report (verification of CCTV driving, etc.);

1. Investigation report (with respect to presumption of the degree of alcohol concentration in the blood at the time of driving alcohol);

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (verification of drinking driving records);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

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 was stated in the facts constituting the crime of sentencing and Article 62-2 of the Act on the Protection, Observation and Order to Attend, and driving again again. In this case, the driver opened the door of the driver’s seat immediately after driving on the road in the influence of alcohol and opened the door of the driver’s seat in the driver’s seat to the extent that the police officer was unable to comply with the drinking test at the time when the police officer was called upon receiving a report at the driver’s seat after driving on the road in the influence of alcohol ( accordingly, the police officer measured the drinking at around 06:41 after the police officer locked the defendant, and applied the above dmark formula): Provided, That the defendant is contrary to the criminal defendant, and again he does not drive a drinking again.

The punishment is more severe than the fine.