A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】 On June 13, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 2.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court racing support, and on May 9, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 2 million won for the same crime, etc. on the same support, and on November 20, 2014, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, etc. in the same support, and on the same date, eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, etc. on May 26, 2016 under the grace period, and on August 29, 2016, the sentence of the said probation became final and conclusive, and the period of parole for the execution of the sentence in a permanent prison was expired on May 2, 2017 and on June 16, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】 On June 10, 2019, at around 20:20, the Defendant driven the E-Poter Ⅱ in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.074% from the section of approximately 100 meters from the C cafeteria near the K cafeteria located in Si-si, Daejeon to D’s front road.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving, and report on the situation of drinking drivers;

1. Previous records: Inquiries and inquiries, investigation reports (Attachment to data related to repeated crimes and judgments, etc. of the same kind of power), application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the status of confinement of individuals;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) applicable to the crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant, who was sentenced to repeated drinking driving, has again invalidated the suspended sentence, and was engaged in drinking again while the repeated crime is in force.

However, the defendant reflects the crime.