A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 1, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 1, 2006, and a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 as a fine at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 1, 206.

On August 9, 2017, the Defendant driven a cub motor vehicle in B while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.071% in blood at around 22:15 on August 9, 2017, even though he had a history of driving alcohol more than twice as above, and proceeded with approximately 300 meters from the front side of the hub of the Incheon Western-ro to the 1st high-priced road of the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous conviction: References to inquiries, investigation reports (verification of the history of drinking driving), and copies of summary order attached thereto; and

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the fact that his/her mistake is repented, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service and Order to Attend the lecture, despite the fact that the Defendant had two times of crime and several times of violation of the Road Traffic Act, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of the instant crime. However, even though the Defendant was under the influence of driving a motor vehicle, it is not good that the Defendant made the motor vehicle to drive the motor vehicle due to the fact that a number of times has passed after a low drinking, the Defendant is deemed to have taken a certain amount of time after drinking, and the surface of the water is left after the lapse of the drinking, the vehicle was not going to violate other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the alcohol concentration in blood was relatively relatively high, and the driving distance was relatively relatively relatively relatively long.