A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On May 10, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Daejeon District Court's Branch on May 10, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On August 25, 2020, at around 21:21, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.087%, and the Defendant was driving a G Abdo-purd car from the front of a restaurant located in the Dannam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B to the front of the E (F) located in the same Gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inspection of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous for judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, and copies of summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Grounds for sentencing Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

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. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the judgment is not prepared in the sentencing criteria.

3. The decision-making driving of a sentence is a crime which may bring the life of a person as well as his own, and is highly dangerous.

As stated in the ruling, the Defendant is punished as a drinking driving, but he is re-driving, and the responsibility for such crime is not less complicated.

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

The blood alcohol concentration is relatively low.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background leading to the crime, method and attitude of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account.