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 April 20, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million at the Busan District Court on April 20, 200, by a fine of KRW 2.5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and by a fine of KRW 6 million at the Ulsan District Court on April 17, 2009, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 29, 2019, around 06:58, the Defendant driven a DNA car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.064% from the 1km section to the nearby road of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Market located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do to the “Ccafeteria” road located in the same Gu.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (a report on confirmation of the same attached records), and copies of each summary order applicable;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or 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. At the time of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is not low and thus the nature of the crime is not good, even if there were the records of punishment several times due to the same kind of drinking driving, the crime of this case is not less strict, and the possibility of criticism is not small. The circumstances or circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant recognizes the Defendant’s criminal act, and is against the Defendant, and the vehicle was driven to work at work on the following day after drinking alcohol and diving until the day immediately preceding the day of this case.