A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 5, 2005, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Busan District Court Branch Branch on July 5, 2005, a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime at the Incheon District Court on June 25, 2007, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime at the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Branch on March 20, 2009, respectively.

Although the Defendant violated Article 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, on January 25, 2017, at around 02:07, the Defendant driven a B body-wide car while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.136% in blood, and proceeded with a section of about 5 km from the front of the 76-ro 247, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul to the front of the 990-ro 13-gil, the same city street.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver and a report on the circumstances of the primary driver;

1. Previous conviction: References to inquiries, investigation reports (report attached to the summary order of the same kind of power), and the application of the 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, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Order to Attend Police Officers are not good when the defendant drives a vehicle in this case under the influence of alcohol three times, even though he had the same criminal history of the same kind of crime. However, the defendant, after drinking alcohol, directly drives a vehicle after going through a dispute with an agent who has arrived late at his request, and giving advice to him, does not reach a violation of other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and efforts are made to sell the vehicle in possession by breaking his mistake at the latest, and the defendant's age, sex, and other acts.