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 September 14, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Changwon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 7, 2019, at around 00:55, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s EM5 car in the state of alcohol 0.060% alcohol level from the front parking lot in Busan B to the same Gu D’s neighboring road.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving once, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employer-employed driver and the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of criminal records of the same kind as a suspect);

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

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. Not applying the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not yet prepared for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act;

3. The decision-making driving of the sentence is not only abrupt of itself, but also a crime that can bring the life of an unspecified person, and is highly dangerous.

Although the Defendant had been punished as a fine due to drinking driving even before, the Defendant is not subject to the punishment for the crime by driving under drinking again.

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

In 2011, eight years have passed since the defendant was punished for drinking driving.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration level did not reach a serious level.

The age, age, and age of the defendant.