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

[Power of violation of Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act] The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months by imprisonment at the Gwangju District Court on April 16, 2008 for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 03:10 on October 16, 2020, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.10% of blood alcohol concentration, driven a rocketing car from approximately 5 km to the front road of the Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju Mine District Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to the front road.

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. A traffic accident report;

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control, and inquiry into the results of the drinking driving control;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry records, and application of each statute of the judgment;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371, Jun. 9, 2020 and enforced on December 10, 2020) that have chosen the punishment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

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

1. The defendant, with the reason of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Order to Provide community service and attend a lecture, was punished once due to a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act and three times due to the previous drunk driving. The criminal record of a suspended sentence violating Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which resulted in the death of a passenger, was a drunk driving, and also led to the death of a passenger, and the crime was not good, and the criminal defendant is sentenced to imprisonment because the pertinent order of drinking water constitutes the revoked order of the driver's license, and thus, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment.

However, there is a big gap between the defendant's previous record of drinking and the date of the crime in this case, and the defendant's mistake is divided.