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 28, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of measurement) at the credit branch of Suwon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant violated Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, on June 25, 2020, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.174% on blood on June 25, 2020, the Defendant driven a BMW 528i car from approximately 25km to the roads near Sungnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-dong, to the roads near Sungnam-dong, GMW 528i car.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Criminal records as stated in the circumstances report on driving at home, the report on the circumstance of driving at home, the report on the driver at home, the investigation report, the report on the results of the crackdown on driving at home, the investigation report (the point of departure, the change of driving distance): The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, the investigation report (the confirmation of criminal records of the suspect);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) and (2) 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 (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures shows the attitude of reflecting the Defendant’s criminal act in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the record of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the measurement of the drinking level), had been refluenced in around 2016, and the blood alcohol concentration level was high and the driving distance was not short, and the occurrence of the traffic accident that shocks the central separation belt during the drinking driving of this case, and that the Defendant promised not to repeat the crime, and that it exceeds the fine.