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

[criminal history] On November 3, 2006, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating road traffic law at the Suwon Flag Flag, and on June 24, 2014, a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime was issued on June 24, 2014, respectively.

[Criminal facts] On June 5, 2018, the Defendant driven Bi30 automobiles while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.063% at the 3km section from the apartment apartment parking lot located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 8:15-Ga, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, to the appraisal roads located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Report on the circumstances of driving a drinking and inquiry about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Making teas;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiries about criminal history, investigation reports (verification of suspect's history of driving alcohol), and application of a copy of an order for summary issuance;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

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. An order to attend a lecture or circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: It is necessary to strictly punish the order in light of the risk of drinking driving.

There are two times the records of punishment of fines for the same crime.

The favorable circumstances: The mistake is recognized and reflected.

The defendant asserts that he was driving to think that he was fright after drinking the previous drinking, and that he was frighted to work, and that he was fright to work. In light of the defendant's residence, workplace address, control time, etc., the defendant's statements are reliable, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to driving of drinking of this case.

Of the blood of this case, alcohol concentration is 0.063% and is not relatively high.

In addition, the records and changes, such as the age, family relationship, driving distance, and circumstances after the crime, are shown.