A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of measurement) in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on November 30, 2012, and on August 6, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of noise) in the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court on August 6,

On April 5, 2020, at around 20:38, the Defendant driven a Erash freight vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 15 km from the front of the Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun to the front of the Dsung located in the same group C, while under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.130%.

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 result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of summary order statutes attached thereto;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) (a point of sound driving) of the Road Traffic Act, and choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of punishment due to drinking driving, etc. in the past, and the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, and that the level of drinking alcohol is high is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant's mistake recognized that he would not drive under the influence of alcohol again, and other various sentencing conditions such as the background of the crime of this case, the age and character of the defendant, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.