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 May 16, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million with a fine of KRW 1.5 million by the Ulsan District Court for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million with the same crime in the same court on March 7, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 18, 2018, at around 00:35, the Defendant driven an Epic vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.134% in the section of approximately 2 km from the front of Ulsan Dong-gu B to the front of the D located in the same Gu C, with approximately 0.134% alcohol level.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice.

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 (attached to summary orders issued under the influence of drunk driving), and application of copies of each summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

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. At the time of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant is high and thus the quality of the crime is not good, the fact that the crime of this case was committed in the same kind of drinking driving, despite the fact that there was a record of punishment twice, and the responsibility for the crime of this case is not less complicated, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant, or that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against himself, the fact that there was no criminal record exceeding the fine, and that the individual rehabilitation procedure is underway, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and motive and circumstance of the crime of the defendant.