[criminal power] On June 28, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the support of the Daegu District Court on the same day, on November 26, 2009, to a fine of seven hundred thousand won for the same crime in the territorial support of the Daegu District Court on the same day, and on November 19, 2015, to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Port Branch of the Daegu District Court on November 27, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 27, 2015. On June 30, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for an injury, etc. on July 8, 2017, and completed the execution of the sentence in the same prison on July 31, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 3, 2020, at around 19:16, the Defendant driven a F Eccoo vehicle in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 50 meters from the front of the C frequency House in Ansan-si B to the front of the Eccal road in D.

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. Criminal place, the occurrence of a crime under the Road Traffic Act (driving), arrest report, notification of the results of crackdown on drunk driving, internal investigation report (report on the situation of a drinking driver), report on the situation of a drinking driver, investigation report, inquiry into the results of crackdown on drunk driving, ledger of driver's licenses, and the vehicle inquiry (F);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (verification of the same criminal records, etc.);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects on it, and that the degree of the Defendant’s exploitation at the time of the instant case was relatively high is favorable to the Defendant.

However, even though the defendant had been punished three times for the same crime, he/she again commits the crime of this case.