On January 18, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in August, 201, for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, in the Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch.

At around 01:40 on April 13, 2020, the Defendant driven an E Car under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.207% from the section of approximately 1k, from the penta to the D in the direction of D in C, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si. The Defendant driven an E Car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.207%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act's prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver: Statement of blood alcohol alcohol appraisal;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. Previous records: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of statutes attached thereto;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts of crime, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant, who had been subject to the criminal punishment twice due to drunk driving, etc. in the past (the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for one time among them), is driving again and driving again, despite the past record of criminal punishment (the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for one time), leading to the crime in this case, and thus, the crime in this case is not very good, and the risk of recidivism is assessed, and the drinking amount at the time of detection reaches 0.207%, and the drinking amount at the time of detection was very high, and the defendant was driving at night, and the traffic island, which is a place of pedestrians, was shock. The defendant seems to have been in a situation where it is impossible for him to do so normally, and considering the fact that it is difficult to see or improve the defendant's edification due to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment or imprisonment with prison labor.