However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Criminal Power] On January 29, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspended execution.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 4, 2019, at around 19:42, the Defendant driven an E SP car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.132% at a section of about 760 meters from the front road of the Daegu-gu B building to the front parking lot of the same Gu C building D.

As a result, the defendant violated the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Reports on internal accidents and investigation reports (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving;

1. Criminal records as indicated in the judgment: Application of inquiry results and investigation reports (verification twice the same kind of power)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment twice due to drinking driving, further repeated the same offense.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is very high to 0.132%.

The circumstances after the crime are not good, such as not driving a police officer who was dispatched after receiving the report at the time of the instant case and making a false statement that the passenger was driving.

In light of these points, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant has been aware of the fact of crime, and that there is no record of criminal punishment after April 2009, etc. are considered as favorable to the defendant. In addition, the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, family environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., are shown in the records and arguments of this case.