On February 2, 2017, the Defendant is a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one-year suspension of execution on the grounds of a violation of road traffic law at the Daejeon District Court on February 2, 2017, and has three times more of the same force.

On November 19, 2020, the Defendant driven a e-car at approximately 500 meters away from the Do in front of the Daejeon E-gu “C main store” to the front of the “D hotel”, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.130% during blood transfusion around 00:10 on November 19, 2020.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving regulations not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. On-site photographs of the detailed report on the situation of the driver placed in the main place;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A);

1. Article 148-2(1) and Article 44-2(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020), Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the same Act, the selection of punishment for a crime

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a serious crime causing serious harm to the life, body, property, etc. of an unqualified person. Thus, the defendant who has concealed the sentence should be held legally liable for the severe legal liability corresponding to the act. The defendant is highly likely to be subject to criminal punishment for the same and similar crimes, such as the three times of drinking, one time of driving with or without a license for driving under the influence of alcohol, and one time of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Evacuation Vehicles) by driving under the influence of alcohol. In particular, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a drunk driving in around 2017, as stated in the judgment, and the period of the suspended sentence has not expired. In light of these criminal records, it is no longer believed that the defendant's words that he will not drive alcohol or wrong at the time of the crime of this case cannot be believed to have reached the level of alcohol of another person.