On December 22, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in the Changwon District Court's Changwon District Court's branch on May 19, 2018 and completed the execution of the sentence.

In addition, the defendant was issued a summary order in Gwangju District Court's net support for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, a fine of 4 million won on July 15, 2014, and a fine of 15 million won on August 31, 2016.

On June 25, 2020, at around 03:37, the Defendant driven a 0.135% alcohol concentration, driving approximately 1m GDPRD125Aobane on the front side of the Seo-gu Seoul District Office in Gwangju, Seo-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, etc., references, pre-dispositions, reports on results of confirmation, investigation reports (report on confirmation at the expiration date of punishment), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the acceptance status of individuals

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;

1. The sentence of imprisonment is inevitable, considering the following: (a) the Defendant, with the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, once again drives under the influence of alcohol in spite of two times the criminal records of the same kind of crime due to drunk driving; and (b) the Defendant is unable to sentence a suspended sentence as he/she committed the instant crime during the period of a repeated offense.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant has no record of being sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment due to a drunk driving, the fact that the defendant is divided into his mistake, the circumstance that the defendant was engaged in a drunk driving, the distance and place of a drunk driving, the age and character of the defendant, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the records and arguments of this case, shall be determined by discretionary mitigation and the scope of imprisonment as ordered.