1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

On September 7, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of one million won or more for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and a summary order of four million won or more for the same crime at the Daejeon District Court on August 7, 2017, respectively.

On October 21, 2020, the Defendant driven D's car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.105% alcohol concentration in blood from around 10 meters to the front road of the building in Seo-gu, Daejeon (Seoul) around 21:53 to around 10 meters.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiries, such as criminal history, replys to inquiries, and application of summary order three Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2(1) and Article 44-2(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020), Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the same Act, the selection of punishment for a crime

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the instant crime: (a) the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant crime was relatively higher than 0.105%; and (b) the Defendant was in a state of high-level drinking, such as a walking, without making clear that it was at the time of enforcement, and a walking, without making clear.

Nevertheless, since the defendant increased the risk of traffic accident by driving a motor vehicle, the illegality of the crime is serious.

In particular, the defendant tried to escape by the central line to avoid the crackdown on drinking, and after the drinking test, the police officer took a bath. The circumstances after the crime are poor.

In addition, the defendant has committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished for drinking driving like the criminal facts in the past, and there is a possibility of criticism.