A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be postponed for one year and six months from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On June 28, 2017, the Defendant is a person who has received a summary order of a fine of KRW 4 million from the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

On May 7, 2020, at around 20:45, the Defendant driven a F-hurn-purn-purged car at approximately 1.2 km from the nearest road of the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, to the neighboring road in D, while under the influence of alcohol by about 0.135%.

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. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstances of drinking drivers, investigation report (report on the circumstances of drinking drivers), and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (report on the confirmation of the same kind of power);

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;

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. The fact that the Defendant committed the crime of drinking alcohol in this case even though he had been punished for drinking prior to the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was high, and the criminal liability is not less and less poor, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In this case, the risk of traffic accidents has not been realized due to this crime, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and is against the depth of the crime, and that there is no criminal record other than the previous record of the judgment, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, motive and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by considering the whole circumstances.