On January 18, 2008, the defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won by the Gwangju District Court for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on September 21, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years by imprisonment for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court on September 21, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 29th of the same month.

On October 17, 2020, around 22:41, the Defendant driven a e-car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 20 meters from the 20-meter section from the roads adjacent to the Seoul Northernbuk-gu B to the D classing road located in C, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.139%.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated two times or more of drinking driving, once again driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and notification of the results of regulating drinking;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, such as inquiries about criminal history, reports on investigation (verification of criminal records of the same kind as the suspect), text of the judgment, and application of the summary order statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020 and enforced on December 10, 2020) on criminal facts;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the grounds for sentencing) are not good for the Defendant, even though he/she was punished five times due to drinking, by driving under the influence of alcohol.

In particular, even after being sentenced to two years of imprisonment for one year of probation due to drinking driving in 2017, the crime of this case has been committed due to the lapse of the period of probation.

The drinking volume of this case is also high.

At present, the defendant is not disqualified for probation, but is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of these circumstances.

However, in determining the term of punishment, the defendant is heavier than imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of different types.