[Criminal Power] On September 20, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. in the Gwangju metropolitan District Court's support on September 20, 2007, and on March 13, 2013, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in June.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 20, 2020, the Defendant driven a rocketing car at a level of about 6 km from the roads in front of the Hanamnam Navy B to the roads in front of his dwelling in the same Gun D while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.178%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement, investigation report, and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (verification of drinking records after 2006), and application of two copies of written judgments to two 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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is a person who has already been punished three times due to drunk driving or one time due to refusal to take a alcohol test.

Nevertheless, the risk of drinking driving has not been broken down, and again, driving under the influence of alcohol has caused serious danger to the safety of the general public.

At the time, the numerical value of blood alcohol concentration is very high and the distance of the defendant's driving is also visible.

At the time of control, the defendant did not close at all his mistake, and rather did not report to police officers, and attempted to refuse the measurement of drinking alcohol.

Considering these circumstances, the defendant should be sentenced to a very serious sentence.

However, it shall be considered in favor of the defendant that the risk of the defendant has not been realized even though it is frightly.