A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 23, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court.

At around 23:20 on January 25, 2020, the Defendant driven a car with approximately 2 km up to 0.20% of blood alcohol concentration to Korea Post located in the same time vibration in front of a restaurant located in Sejong City B.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Defendant

Since there is no concern about infringement of the right of defense of the counsel, the crime was revised by adding it to the purpose of the legal text.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Control note, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, report on the results of the regulation of drinking driving, inquiry into the results of the fact, and report processing table of 112 reported cases;

1. Records of the control of drinking drivers, records of the use of a drinking measuring instrument, records of car driving licenses, and the register of automobile driving licenses;

1. Previous record: Application of the defendant's statutory statement and criminal records-related Acts 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;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances favorable to the accused):

1. The danger and harm of drinking alcohol under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is very serious; the blood alcohol concentration level at the time was high at the time; the driving distance was long; the criminal records in the judgment are expected to have a high level; however, the defendant is deemed disadvantageous to the defendant; however, the defendant was aware of the fact that there was a very heavy and high possibility of criticism in the crime; there was no further accident; the previous criminal records in the judgment and the interval between the criminal records in the instant case and the instant crime are relatively relatively relatively high; there was no same criminal records except for the previous criminal records in the judgment; and the defendant works a part-time work at the restaurant as daily work under the condition that the health condition is not good due to mental illness, urology, etc.