A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 7, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on June 7, 2007, and a fine of 3 million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on August 25, 2008.

On January 4, 2017, the Defendant, at around 18:35, driven a B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.182% from around 50 meters to around 46.201, a day from around 46.201, a day from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, to the front road of the 1229 Gu Community Center.

Accordingly, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, and once again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the detection of the driver at home, a report on the circumstances of the driver at home, and an appraisal report on alcohol during blood;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, summary order, and other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal history;

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. 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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the Defendant had been punished four times due to drinking alcohol in the past, and again commits the instant crime, taking into account the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the amount of alcohol concentration in the blood during the instant crime was extremely high to 0.182% at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the Defendant’s family members against whom the Defendant should support the instant crime, the fact that there are family members who should support the Defendant, and that there was no record of punishment that the Defendant had been punished in excess of the past fine.