A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 10, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court on December 10, 2008, and on October 24, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for the same crime from the support of the Daegu District Court to the Daegu District Court on October 24, 201, and was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for not less than twice.

On August 1, 2017, the Defendant driven a Bbeer or a car under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.182% from the 2km section of approximately 2 km to the front road of the 2-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and statement in the circumstances of the driver of drinking alcohol;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiries, such as criminal history, and the text of the judgment;

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

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 reasons for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection and the community service order and the order to attend a lecture, was punished for driving under drinking several times before, and, in particular, the recidivism was committed even after the suspended sentence of imprisonment was sentenced as stated in the judgment in the immediately preceding trial, and there is a strong burden of proof that the sentence is required to be sentenced in a lump sum because the amount of alcohol concentration among the blood transfusion at the time of crackdown is high.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the above suspended sentence in 2013 and there is time interval between the crime of this case and the defendant, and that the defendant reflects his fault in depth, the suspended sentence is to be sentenced once again with the incidental disposition only once. It is so decided as per Disposition.