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 9, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Incheon District Court on 21, 2008, the summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime at the same court on 9, 2010, and the summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime at the same court on 23, 2013, respectively.

Although the Defendant had had a history of driving alcohol twice or more as above, on October 14, 2017, the Defendant driven a BSP car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.067% in blood around 0.22:0 on October 14, 2017, and proceeded with a section of about 1 km from the front of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Yeonsu-gu Gam training tunnel to the front of the 230 occi (occi) Goi-gu in the same city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, investigation reports (a copy of the summary order attached to the suspect's previous records) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached thereto;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the fact that his/her mistake is repented, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Order to Attend the School are as follows: (a) although there are three times criminal records of the same kind of crime and several times of violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol; (b) although the Defendant requested to drive a motor vehicle by proxy after drinking alcohol, the Defendant appears to have been driving a motor vehicle directly after making the judgment due to delayed distribution; (c) the Defendant did not reach a violation of other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes; and (d) later, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, and other circumstances.