A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

In Daejeon District Court, on August 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and on July 16, 2018, the Defendant filed a request for a summary order of KRW 1.5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and on October 18, 2018, the said summary order became final and conclusive on October 18, 2018.

On July 17, 2018, the Defendant driven the E Spo-type car from the D cafeteria parking lot located in public city in public city C to the front of the school, such as the school lower school located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, with a alcohol content of 0.104% of alcohol during blood transfusion around 22:10.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement on the circumstances of the offender, each driver of each state driving, inquiry of the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking, a statement on the details of crackdown, and an appraisal of alcohol alcohol during blood;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a written reply to inquiries, such as criminal history, one copy of a written indictment, two copies of a judgment, and court conet search statutes;

1. Provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime applicable to the relevant criminal facts, and the option of a sentence;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the observation of protection, community service order, and lecture attendance order

1. In a case where a summary order is requested as a result of the control of drinking driving as stated in the Defendant’s summary of the assertion, the person who violated Article 44(1) on at least two occasions under Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) does not constitute “violation,” and thus, the instant provision does not apply to the Defendant.

2. On the grounds delineated below, “a person who has violated Article 44(1) not less than twice” is not limited to a person who has been convicted on not less than two occasions of violating Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, but has violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.