A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

On November 5, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the support of the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court on November 5, 2010, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a period of ten months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court on August 16, 2013.

Although the Defendant had been able to violate Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice as above, at around August 9, 2018, the Defendant driven a Csti-type car with a blood alcohol content of 0.139% under the influence of alcohol from the front day of the cafeteria cafeteria at the Han-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu to the front day of Dong-gu B.

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. Application of statutes to inquiries about criminal records, etc.;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances among the grounds for the relevant punishment);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation, community service order, and order to attend a meeting, is a very dangerous crime that may cause unexpected behaviors to the life and family of others by raising the possibility of traffic accidents, and thus, in order to prevent this, the defendant is bound to bear strict responsibility for any act related thereto. The defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the record of being punished twice as drinking driving within 10 years from the instant case, as stated in the judgment, even though he had the record of being punished twice as drinking driving, and the defendant committed the instant crime. Meanwhile, the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; the defendant has no record of being punished as drinking driving after 2013; the defendant has no record of being punished as drinking driving after 2013; and the records and arguments, such as blood alcohol concentration level, etc.