A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On February 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 10 million won due to a violation of road traffic law (drinking) at the Cheongju District Court on February 13, 2015, and on April 14, 2014, the Daejeon District Court was sentenced to imprisonment of 8 months due to a violation of road traffic law (drinking), 2 years of suspended execution, protective observation, etc., and was punished seven times due to drinking.

[2] On February 23, 2018, the Defendant driven a e-mail vehicle with blood alcohol content of 0.153% under the influence of alcohol from the 25-clock convenience store in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seog-si to the 200-mnsan middle school located in the same Dong located in the same Dong located in approximately 200 meters away from the e-mail convenience store in Seo-gu, Seo-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and a written statement of the situation of the driver;

1. Photographss by cutting on the spot, vehicle photographs, black booms;

1. Application of the statutes of the response request for appraisal;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Although the grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection, the order to attend a lecture, and the order to attend a community service order, have been seven times or more, it does not seem to have shown that the case was faced while driving a drinking house as stated in its reasoning. Recognizing o’s mistake, it appears that the damage was recovered by taking out mandatory insurance and taking account of the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.