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

On June 28, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch.

On October 26, 2020, the Defendant driven D SM5 car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.071% in blood from around 400 meters to the front road of Si, Gunsan-si, Seoul-si.

Accordingly, the defendant, even though he violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act at least once, was driving again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Investigative reports, reports on the circumstances of the driver who is placed in driving, and inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history (A) and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the same kind of force;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following sentencing shall be taken into account) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (the following sentencing shall be taken into account):

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on orders to provide community service and attend lectures is highly necessary considering the risk of accidents that may cause the driving of drinking in the current road traffic situation where many unspecified people habitually use, as well as the possibility of occurrence of serious damage therefrom.

The legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act to stipulate the statutory penalty for driving under drinking two or more times under the Road Traffic Act is to reflect such legislative intent in prescribing a fine of not less than 10,000 won, but not more than 20,000 won.

The Defendant is highly likely to be criticized in that he once again re-imprisoned the drinking driving even though he had the history of punishment due to drinking driving in the past.

However, the defendant reflects his depth in committing the crime, taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the details of the crime, the situation before and after the crime, the age of the defendant, the family environment, etc., within the scope of the punishment for which the amount of reduction was reduced only once