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 March 15, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million at the Busan District Court for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on September 18, 2015, a summary order of KRW 4 million was issued on September 18, 201 for the same crime, etc.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 31, 2020, around 00:02, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle E in the state of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.146% from the 4km section from the front of the building B in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si to the front of the Dju station located in C, to the road.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, inquiry of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the circumstantial statement of the drinking driver;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, etc., inquiry reports, investigation reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached to a summary order;

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. Although there was a record of two times of punishment due to drinking driving prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level at the time was high and thus the Defendant’s liability was not less light, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In this case, the risk of traffic accident does not realize due to the crime, the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects the depth of the crime, and the fact that there is no particular criminal force other than the previous conviction in the judgment is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the records and arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are shown.