【Criminal Power】 On November 11, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court on June 1, 2013; on February 4, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Hongsung Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court on February 4, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】 Even though the Defendant had been punished twice or more due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as above, the Defendant driven a FS-type car under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.144% in the section of about 120km from the 120km away from the K-type C funeral hall parking lot located in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, about October 6, 2018 to E in the Gyeong-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: The application of criminal records, copies of each written judgment, and copies of each summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant was punished for drunk driving on six occasions, and the two times among them was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the Defendant again driven under the influence of alcohol even if he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

Although the Defendant asserts that he had been driving with the knowledge that he was driving after attending the funeral ceremony of his son and drinking alcohol. However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant seems to have been driving without the awareness of any particular crime, even though he sufficiently recognizes the fact that he was driving in the state of drinking, in light of the fact that he was driving with the new wall, and that the degree of blood alcohol level measured is considerably high, etc.

In spite of repeated detection of drinking driving and prior notice, drinking driving shall be conducted again.