A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

[criminal power] On November 13, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on December 13, 2009; a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Chungcheong District Court on December 1, 201; and on August 13, 2015, a summary order of KRW 7 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seowon District Court’s Eunpyeong District Court site; and on February 13, 2015, a summary order of KRW 7 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) was issued at least twice.

【Criminal Facts】

On November 12, 2018, at around 18:20, the Defendant driven a CM car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 6km alcohol concentration of about 0.170% from the section of approximately 6km to the front road of the Nogjin 1, 1519-2, the e-mail Eup in the e-mail-type e-mail.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Notification of the result of the drinking driving control;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment to a summary order of the same kind of crime), and application of statutes of four copies of the summary order;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act committed a crime of the same kind, despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced twice to a majority of punishment due to the same crime, and that the blood alcohol level of this case is high, the defendant should be sentenced to a strict punishment. On the other hand, considering the fact that the defendant recognized and reflects the crime, that the defendant was sentenced to a punishment due to a drunk driving, that there was no punishment heavier than a suspended sentence, that there was no traffic accident, that there was no traffic accident, and that the defendant's family members are supported by a neglect, the sentence of the defendant's imprisonment is somewhat somewhat imposed.