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 February 20, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million for a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daejeon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 12, 2019, at around 22:15, the Defendant driven an Erocketing car from around 100 meters away from Daejeon Pungdong B to the front road located in C, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.102% of blood alcohol level.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Control note, notification of the results of the control of drinking driving, report on the circumstances of drinking drivers, etc., inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, and the register of driver's licenses, etc.;

1. Before judgment: Application of summary order (2012 high-ranking 3237), criminal records, etc. and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires the punishment corresponding to the crimes that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others.

Even though the Defendant had been punished once due to drinking driving, etc., the Defendant committed the instant crime at the same time, and the degree of blood alcohol level at the time of committing the instant crime is high, and the nature and circumstances of the relevant crime are not weak.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and committed the instant crime against his mistake, and said that he would not dispose of and repeat the instant vehicle.

(A) At the time of the commission of the crime, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle leased, and thereafter disposed of the motor vehicle owned by him). There was no personal injury due to the instant crime.

On the other hand, however,