A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

On March 4, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch, and KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for the same crime in the Daejeon District Court’s Hong Branch on December 1, 201.

Although the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving more than twice as seen above, the Defendant was driving Gqusic Cousc vehicles from the roads near the gas station in Gunsan-si B to the roads between D apartment Edong and Fdong B while under the influence of alcohol of 0.124% at around 10:50 on June 6, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, investigation report, notification of the results of the control of drinking driving, and the next-time inquiry;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, etc., inquiry report (A), investigation report (verification of the same criminal records - attachment of summary order), application of summary order statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16307, Dec. 24, 2018);

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. In light of the risk of an accident that causes the driving of a motor vehicle in the current road traffic situation where many and unspecified persons habitually use the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and the possibility of causing a serious damage therefrom, the social necessity to strict drinking driving is very high.

The legislative intent of the former Road Traffic Act stipulating that the statutory minimum punishment for a drinking driver under the former Road Traffic Act is more than one year, and a fine of more than five million won is reflected.

The defendant has a strong possibility of criticism in that he has already been subject to criminal punishment twice due to drinking driving, even though he had a history of criminal punishment.

However, the defendant is against the crime.