On August 26, 2016, the Defendant was released on December 22, 2017, and the parole period expired on June 11, 2018, by a District Court of the Government on August 26, 2016, after having been sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Although the Defendant had been punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act as above, at around 00:45 on February 9, 2020, the Defendant driven a DMW 530d car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.069% from the 5km section from the front of a cafeteria located in the Dong-si, Yangju to the front of the “C” located in the same city at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports (a) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among the statutory provisions applicable to the crimes and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty for a repeated crime;

1. Prior to the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, the accused has been subject to punishment three times due to drunk driving even prior to the reason for sentencing.

In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) in 2016. After parole on December 22, 2017, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.069% during the period of parole after the expiration of the period of parole on June 11, 2018.

The above defendant's drinking driving records, the defendant's benefit from the parole actually reduced for six months due to the above parole, and the same crime is committed again, and the blood alcohol concentration of this case is not low, and the distance of the driving is also significant, it is necessary to severely punish the defendant.

However, this case.