The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2013, the Defendant is a person who was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by this court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and such judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2013, driving a car owned by the Defendant.

At around 17:00 on November 2, 2012, the Defendant driven the said vehicle in a state of approximately 4 kilometers in the blood alcohol concentration of 0.208% from the front of the king of the Republic of Korea located in Seogri to the front of the Dong-dong and the front of the road located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Report on actions taken against an employer, and report on the status of an employer-employed driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal history records;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which are concurrent crimes and exemption from punishment, have the record of being sentenced to a fine twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, but the driving under the influence of alcohol is likely to be criticized again.

However, the Defendant returned home after being examined by the Busan Police Station C police box as a result of the instant crime. On January 17, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the special obstruction of performance of official duties and for the violation of the Road Traffic Act by the court 2012Kadan1080 on January 17, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive. The instant crime was committed at the same time before the judgment on the continuous crime committed on the same day became final and conclusive. According to the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the Defendant stated to the police officer belonging to the Seosan Police Station, who investigated the instant case, that “The police officer was admitted to the ward of the Seocho Police Station in relation to the current crime of obstruction of official duties.”