A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six 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 March 7, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on drinking), and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on April 11, 2008) in the support for the development of the place of water supply and mountain, in which the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on drinking), and violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On October 23, 2015, the Defendant driven an Ecller vehicle at the 10m section of the road front of the D Hospital located in G in Gyeonggi Si, under the influence of alcohol content of 0.120% during blood transfusion around 00:00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes described in subparagraph (A) to inquiries, such as a report on the circumstances of driving under drinking, a report on the circumstances of the driver under driving under driving under drinking, notification of the results of crackdown on drinking

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 defendant and his defense counsel's assertion about the order to attend a lecture and the order to attend a community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code stated that the charges between the defendant and his/her substitute driver had been disputed, while the defendant and his/her substitute driver were moving to the defendant's residence, and the substitute driver parked on the road front of the D hospital, and the defendant was driving the instant vehicle to park at the edge of the road in order to prevent the accident, so it constitutes an emergency escape and thus the illegality should be avoided.

According to the records of this case, F, an acting driver, was at the request of the D Hospital to drive the Defendant’s vehicle on behalf of the destination, and was at the vicinity of D Hospital, and there was a dispute over the direction of movement between the Defendant and F (F, an acting engineer at the time, intended to move to D hospital, which is the purpose of the request.