On October 22, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of 2.5 million won by committing a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court, and on January 8, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 months by imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court.

On June 25, 2020, at around 20:40, the Defendant driven an Eerc-crick cruise car under the influence of alcohol content of about 500 meters from the front of the Ulsan-gun B market in Ulsan-gun to the front road of the D Park in C, while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.11%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Investigation report of the defendant's legal statement, the result of the regulation on drinking driving, the results of the regulation on drinking driving, and the statement on the state of drinking drivers (report on the state of drinking drivers);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is as follows: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime at least five years with the last penal force despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished five times in total, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and the fine, due to drinking driving, including the prior order of judgment; (b) the Defendant recognized the Defendant as committing the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant disposing of the indicated vehicle and did not repeat the crime; and (d) other factors such as motive and background, method and consequence of the commission of the crime; (c) circumstances after the commission of the crime; (d) the Defendant’s age, environment, and criminal record relationship