A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of two million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court, and on April 19, 2012, the Defendant was punished on two or more occasions due to drinking, such as receiving a summary order of a fine of six million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court.

around 00:30 on August 5, 2018, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle in the Spag-type B under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.112% from the 5km section of approximately 5km from the 122m-ro, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul to the 122m-ro, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul-do, in a state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.12%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement report and investigation report on the situation of the driver at the main place of business (report on the situation of the driver at the main place of business);

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Reporting on the arrest of a person who violates road traffic laws;

1. Investigation reports and photographs;

1. Investigation report (to have a substitute driver C telephone conversations);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (verification of the same kind of force, etc.);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include four times the Defendant, who had been punished for driving alcohol, and the Defendant was driving alcohol on August 10, 2018, five days after the enforcement of the instant crime.

In light of the fact that a summary order was issued on November 5, 2018 on the suspicion that a police officer refused a police officer's request for measurement of drinking conditions, there is a considerable reason to see that the risk of recidivism is reasonable.

Defendant reflects on crimes.

On the ground that there was a dispute with a substitute driver, the reason why the substitute driver was driving under influence of alcohol, and all the circumstances, such as the background of the crime in this case, the age, sex, environment, etc. of the defendant, shall be considered, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined.