On August 23, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special injury and two years of suspended execution in Seoul Southern District Court on August 23, 2018, and the said judgment has become final and conclusive and is currently in the grace period.

In addition, on November 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3.5 million at the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Aggravated Punishment”), and on October 13, 2008, a summary order of KRW 3 million was issued by the same court for the same crime, etc.

On April 15, 2019, the Defendant violated the duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol twice. On April 15, 2019, at around 01:55, the Defendant again driven an ES525 V car without mandatory insurance at approximately 1 km from the front of the Defendant’s dwelling in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul to the front of the D cafeteria located in the same Gu, under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.207%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, notification on the results of the control of drinking driving, and mandatory insurance;

1. The application of criminal records, circular statements, copies of written judgments, and copies of summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018 and enforced June 25, 2019); Article 46 (2) 2, and Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, the method of weighing alcohol (0.207%), the circumstances of drunk driving, the previous conviction of fines for drunk driving and twice (2008, 2013) of the Criminal Act, and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as recidivism during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to a crime, reflectivity, etc., shall be equally considered in determining the same sentence as the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.