[criminal power] On September 23, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Chuncheon District Court on September 23, 201; on October 31, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the same court on July 15, 2015; on September 3, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime; and on September 3, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for imprisonment with labor for the same crime at the Suwon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 4, 2020, the Defendant driven B K5 car under the influence of alcohol by 0.108% from a distance of about 10km to the northyangan Intersection located in the south of the Sinsan-si, Ansan-si, Annsan-si to the Namyang-do, Annsan-si, Annsan-si, Annsan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and the control results of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

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. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has five times the criminal records of punishment for drunk driving, including the criminal records before a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for two times, this case’s drinking driving was conducted at the same time, and considering the risk of drunk driving to many and unspecified persons and the purport of the amendment of the Act increased by statutory penalty, the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

In light of the fact that the defendant repeats the same kind of crime as above, it is judged that the defendant's compliance consciousness related to it was imminent, and this act as a dangerous element to the general public.

In fact, while the defendant is driving under the influence of alcohol, a single accident has occurred.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the age of the defendant.