A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight 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 November 15, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million by the Incheon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 12, 2020, at around 00:28, the Defendant driven a D Sti-type car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.221% under the influence of alcohol in the 10km section from the front of the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul apartment commercial building site to the Nam-gu Seoul apartment commercial building parking lot.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Reporting on detection of a violation of the Road Traffic Act, inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, and reporting on the circumstances of driving under the influence of alcohol;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, repeated statements, investigation reports, and 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;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years;

2. Crimes of which the sentencing criteria are not set for each judgment of the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

3. The crime of this case is found to be disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant, even though he had the history of punishment for drunk driving, drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.221%, with heavy liability in light of the content of the crime, that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is considerably high, and that the defendant has the history of punishment for three-time drunk driving.

However, there is a family member who should support the defendant while making a confession of the crime of this case, and the defendant's wife.