However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Criminal Power] On September 12, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million by the Ulsan District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 21, 2020, at around 10:35, the Defendant driven an E rocketing car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.250% at the 2km section from the front of the restaurant located in Asan City B to the Asan-si ground parking lot in the Asan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant was driven under drinking not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement of the occurrence of traffic accidents in the preparation of the defendant's legal statement F;

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

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, wear of accident, and photograph of the scene of accident;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, investigation reports (verification of criminal records of the same kind), summary order ( Ulsan District Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision 13415) shall be applied;

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;

2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

4. Grounds for sentencing Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year nor more than two years and not more than six months;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the judgment is not prepared in the sentencing criteria.

3. The decision-making driving of a sentence is a crime which may bring the life of a person as well as his own, and is highly dangerous.

As stated in the ruling, the Defendant is punished as a drinking driving, but he is re-driving, and the responsibility for such crime is not less complicated.

The blood alcohol concentration is also very high.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

The punishment power of the previous drunk driving is before the domination.

Only one penalty force for a fine shall be the same.

(b) other.