A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two 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 June 30, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court, and a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime, etc. on September 14, 201, in the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 22:00 on April 6, 2020, the Defendant driven Csch Rexroth vehicles with approximately 0.123% of alcohol concentration at the section of approximately 2km from the road near the Kapeta located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu to the roads near the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the statement of the status of the driver, and an investigation report (the report on the status of the driver);

1. Criminal records as indicated in the judgment: Application of each of the criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation status (verification of criminal records), and 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;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the criminal records as stated in the judgment of the defendant, repeating drinking again even though the defendant had been punished for a total of four drinking driving prior to the instant case, and considering the repeated drinking driving, it is judged that there is a need to supervise the defendant so as not to drive drinking, and especially order probation.

The fact that the opening of the opening seems to be rarely, the fact that the drinking water in this case is high and that the circumstances discovered to be abnormal are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it shall be considered favorable to the defendant that the defendant did not lead to a multi-accident and that the defendant has no record of punishment heavier than that of the previous fine of this case, and the age, character, character, environment, and environment of the defendant.