A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

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

Punishment of the crime

Some of the facts charged were corrected.

[criminal power] On September 24, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million by the Seoul Western District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On October 12, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two months for imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 21, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.139% around the morning, the Defendant driven C Launa car over about five meters from the front of the next apartment in Gwangju City to the front of the said apartment.

Accordingly, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, report on actual condition, report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, and notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs at the time of accident;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records and criminal suspect's judgment [the defendant and his defense counsel] of the same kind of criminal records and criminal suspect's judgment [the defendant and his defense counsel returned home by using his substitute driving, which was set locked in the vehicle after returning home, but it was hard to find, and the vehicle was cut off in a middle or down on the way when brack was cut down, and there was no fact that the defendant driven a drinking driver. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, ① the defendant responded to the police officer's drinking test on the day of the case, and the investigation report (the main driver's report, etc. only stated that the defendant responded to the police officer's drinking, and no trace was found that the defendant mentioned that he was not driving a drinking at the time, ② the back part of the motor vehicle was considerably damaged as a result of the conflict with the defendant's vehicle's sign after the apartment, and also the collision occurred.