A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 31, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million by the Suwon District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On August 26, 2019, at around 02:27, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with low alcohol level of about 0.141% while under the influence of alcohol at the section of approximately 1k from the front of the Gu Non-fwing Station at the time of harmony to the front of the same city B and the front road.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of, and investigation into, a host driver (report on the circumstances of the host driver);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (verification of the same criminal records);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, 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. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including his/her previous convictions, may have the same criminal records;

In 2018, the Defendant was punished by a fine despite the same kind of force as above (which seems to have taken into account that a considerable period of time has elapsed after having been sentenced to punishment due to drinking driving), and was driving again under the influence of alcohol.

At the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the blood alcohol concentration was significant and the physical accident occurred.

As such, a serious warning is needed to the defendant that there is a lack of compliance consciousness on the operation of a motor vehicle.

However, the fact that the defendant's mistake was correctly predicted, the driving distance was not visible, there was no penalty force exceeding fines for the last about 15 years, physical damage was recovered through insurance processing, and other records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, career, environment, background and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.