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

On February 13, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of four million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court on February 13, 2017, two times the previous convictions.

On May 10, 2020, the Defendant, as seen above, driven a B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.142% at around 21:32 on May 10, 2020, and operated a section of approximately 100 meters to the front road of Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon Association E-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of two copies of a written summary order related to criminal records, repeated statements, and two times before and after drinking;

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 of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the crime of this case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.142% at the time of the crime of this case, and the Defendant, at the time of crackdown, was an inaccurate and unsatisfying level, relatively high level.

Nevertheless, since the defendant increased the risk of traffic accident by driving a motor vehicle, the illegality of the crime is not easy.

In particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished twice as a drinking driving crime, including the previous convictions in the past, and therefore, he is highly likely to be subject to criticism.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, the age, character and behavior of the defendant.