On July 11, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Daejeon District Court, and on May 24, 2012, the same court was notified of a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, at around 23:30 on October 15, 2019, the Defendant driven a “C” restaurant in Daejeon Seo-gu B with approximately 30 meters distance from the restaurant to the road adjacent to the same Gu D, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.130%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records, etc. and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant reflects the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant’s last record of drunk driving was 2012.

However, drinking driving is a serious crime that causes serious danger and injury to another person's life, body, property, etc., and thus, the criminal defendant who has concealed it should be held legally liable for the severe legal liability corresponding to the act. The criminal defendant, including the criminal record in his judgment, committed the crime in this case five times or more due to drinking driving (one time a sentence is a criminal record), and the criminal record in this case was committed. The criminal defendant's blood alcohol concentration was very high at the time of the criminal act in this case. In light of these criminal records of the criminal defendant, it is inevitable to view that the possibility of recidivism by the criminal defendant is high, and although the criminal defendant was short of the distance of driving at the time of the criminal act in this case, it is merely because it was discovered as soon as possible. Thus, it is significant to the criminal defendant.