A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 November 30, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million by the Ulsan District Court for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 3 million by the same court on March 4, 2016, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 12, 2019, at around 23:21, the Defendant driven a CNis G80 car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.113% in the section of about 1km from the roads near Ulsan-gu B apartment to the prosperity south-gu Intersection in the same Gu.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment of the same criminal records), and copies of each summary order applicable;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

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 there was a history of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol twice for the reasons of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, but the quality of the crime is not good. The fact that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level at the time is high, and thus the possibility of criticism is not small in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, the fact that the defendant recognizes his criminal act and is against the depth, and that the distance of driving under the influence of alcohol is that the defendant is driving under the influence of alcohol.