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 Nov. 29, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on Feb. 2, 2009, a fine of one million won for the same crime at the Changwon District Court on Feb. 2, 2009, a fine of five million won for the same crime at the same court on Apr. 18, 2016, respectively. On Aug. 26, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspension of execution for six months for the same crime at the same court.

【Criminal Facts of Crimes】 On December 29, 2019, the Defendant driven a C Orler vehicle with a 0.119% alcohol concentration 0.119% under the influence of alcohol on the front of the convenience store where it is difficult to identify the name located in the sub-dong of Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si from the front of the convenience store to the front of the Kimhae-si B Apartment-si.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Report on driving under the influence of alcohol, report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, report on the situation of a drinking driver, notification of the results of the control of drinking under the influence of alcohol, and photograph;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of statutes governing judgment;

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Considering probation and community service, the criminal record of drinking alcohol driving by the defendant, and the result of the judgment before the court of this case (the case's drinking driving is also unable to memory), it is recognized that the defendant is a person with a habit of drinking alcohol and needs to receive the outpatient treatment accordingly because of the high risk of recidivism.

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 44-2 of the Medical Treatment and Custody, etc. Act (the order to verify the existence of alcohol and to undergo necessary medical treatment), the necessity of the medical treatment order, and the reason for sentencing, even though there are several records of punishment for drunk driving (including the suspension of execution of sentence), the accused is not less vulnerable to

However, the defendant is wrong.