A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in an Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on August 17, 2006, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court's Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court on September 29, 2006, and the suspended sentence was revoked. On July 4, 2013, the defendant was issued a summary order of 8 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Busan District Court's Branch of the Incheon District Court to a summary order.

On October 3, 2018, at around 22:55, the Defendant driven CMW car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.159% from the section of about 3km from the front day of the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu to the front day of Seocheon-si, Busan.

The Defendant, who has violated the prohibition regulations on drunk driving at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the said regulations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal history records, probationary orders attached between 10 to 15 times, and application of each statute of the judgment;

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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act recognizes the defendant's own responsibility for the instant crime, the fact that the defendant has high blood alcohol level at the time of the instant crime, the fact that the defendant was sentenced to six times criminal punishment due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, including the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment, and other circumstances that the defendant's assertion that the defendant was driving because he was not connected with the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, and acting driving engineer for the background of the crime do not constitute a strong doubt about the defendant's compliance consciousness.