[criminal power] On April 12, 2012 and August 12, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of one million won and a fine of three million won, respectively, for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Incheon District Court’s Busan Branch Branch on April 12, 2012 and August 12, 2013. On November 11, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced by the Gwangju District Court for eight months as a crime of occupational embezzlement and completed the execution of the sentence on July 13, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 10, 2019, at around 23:45, the Defendant driven a D-to-purd vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.124% from the 3km section from the front road in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju to the advanced course of high-tech, located in Gwangju Northern-gu, to the advanced course of high-tech.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports and investigation reports (Attachment to a copy of decisions related to power);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders (applicable to a previous offense of occupational embezzlement in the market);

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter “the reason for sentencing”) lies in a number of criminal offenses including two criminal offenses, and has already been punished two times due to drunk driving.

In addition, even though the crime of occupational embezzlement is being committed for a repeated crime, it is inevitable to choose a sentence of imprisonment in that it has reached the crime of this case through the reduction of drinking driving, and the sentence of imprisonment is to be sentenced so long as imprisonment is chosen.

However, it shall be mitigated in consideration of the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding a fine due to drinking driving, and that the defendant is willing not to drive a drinking again while reflecting the depth of the crime of this case, and other factors.