A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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 April 3, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Changwon District Court on April 3, 2007; on June 21, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a fine for the same crime; on October 6, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a summary order with the Changwon District Court on the same crime as the Jinju Branch.

On October 7, 2015, at around 20:40, the Defendant driven C Lasta car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.159% from the 1km section from the front of the head of the Tong Park-dong, Sacheon-si to the front road of the Yacheon-si, Sacheon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the control of drinking driving, report on the state of drinking drivers, report on the state of drinking driving, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal history records, etc. inquiry report (A), report on the results of confirmation before the disposition [A], and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of three copies, such as a summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires strict punishment against the Defendant in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol even though he/she had been punished three times due to drinking driving, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol even though he/she had caused a traffic accident during drinking driving on September 5, 2015, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is considerable.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects his/her crime and scraps his/her own vehicle, etc. that he/she does not drive under drinking again in the future, and that the defendant has no penalty force, etc., shall be considered as circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the records of this case, such as the age and character of the defendant, shall be considered as circumstances favorable to the