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 March 27, 2007, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court's Eunpyeong site source as well as a summary order of KRW 2 million for a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court's Incheon District Court's Branch on August 26, 2008.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as above, on July 8, 2020, the Defendant driven a F Poter Cargo under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.171% from the section of about 3km from the front side of the road located in Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon to the front road located in Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoan-gu.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the result of crackdown on drinking driving and on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previouss before ruling: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of each summary order-related Act 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;

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

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

4. Grounds for sentencing Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year nor more than two years and not more than six months;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the judgment is not prepared in the sentencing criteria.

3. The decision-making driving of a sentence is a crime which may bring the life of a person as well as his own, and is highly dangerous.

Even though the defendant is punished as a drunk driving as stated in the ruling, he is not subject to criminal liability by driving under the influence of alcohol again.

The blood alcohol concentration is relatively high.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

The previous drinking punishment power is prior to a ten-year period.

(b) other.