A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

[criminal power] On April 3, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court, and a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch on April 27, 2010, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 02:30 on September 8, 2012, the Defendant driven B, under the influence of alcohol 0.137% in a section of about 9km from the front of a sugar site to the front of the “skin indoor golf course” located in 407 U.S. Sim-si 407, in which it is difficult to find out the trade name in the conduct of drinking at Simnung-si, the Defendant driven B, under the influence of alcohol 0.137%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the status of a drinking driver, and the written report on the status of a drinking driver;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiries, such as criminal records, and investigation reports (report attached to the same type of power judgment, etc.);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 62-2(1) of the Act on the Order of Community Service and Order of Education, Article 59 of the Probation, etc., is a vehicle under the influence of alcohol by the defendant, and a drunk driving is a serious dangerous crime that may lead to a serious accident that may lead to another person's life, and the recent revision of the Road Traffic Act has greatly strengthened the punishment for the act of drinking under the influence of alcohol, the defendant committed the crime of this case in the same case even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving after 209, and the defendant committed the crime of this case in the same manner, and after the defendant caused contact with other vehicles while driving under the influence of alcohol of this case, the commercial building is facing India.