A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 April 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court. On February 26, 2010, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 2 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On March 16, 2016, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Criminal facts

On July 2, 2020, at around 21:37, the Defendant driven a k7 car in the state of alcohol with approximately 00 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.165% from the front parking lot of Ulsan-gu B to the front road of Ulsan-dong C, Ulsan-gu.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report on the results of crackdown on drinking driving, the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of the drinking driver);

1. Previous records: Criminal records, etc., and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports and investigation reports (verification of the same kind of power);

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. 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. Although the order to attend a lecture or the order to provide community service had been punished several times prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant committed the crime of drinking alcohol in this case at the same time, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level at the time is high and thus the liability for the crime is not less light, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The fact that the distance from the driving under the influence of alcohol is short, the risk of traffic accidents has not been realized due to the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and is in depth against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

The age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, and occupation of the defendant.