A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 April 23, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of 3.5 million won for a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Chuncheon District Court on April 23, 2007. On February 17, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year for a crime of violating road traffic laws.

On November 25, 2017, the Defendant driven B rocketing car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.240% during blood in the front parking lot of the Gangwon University located in the same city from the Gangwon National University to the front parking lot of the Gangwon National University Hospital in the same city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of C and D;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and the statement in the circumstances of the driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (not less than twice drinking driving);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the protection and observation, community service order, and the order to attend a lecture, was the record that the defendant was punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 2001, 2007, and 2011, and in particular, in 2011, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, despite the concurrent concurrence with other crimes. At the time of the crime of this case, the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime of this case is very high to 0.240%, and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving in 207 and 201 was higher to 0.152% and 0.186%, which were higher than the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving in 201, are the elements for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the Defendant appears to have recognized and reflected the instant crime, the instant crime is limited to a simple drinking driving, and no other damage has occurred (the Defendant shocked the tin line, but the tin line was not damaged to the extent that it requires repair), etc., as an element for sentencing favorable to the Defendant, shall be considered as an element for sentencing.