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 April 1, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3.5 million by the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a summary order of KRW 5 million by the same court on March 13, 2014, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 5, 2019, at around 20:50, the Defendant driven a Fran vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling of about 0.110% in the 1km section from the front of the “Ccafeteria” road located in Ulsan-gun B, Ulsan-gun, to the front of the Gu Police Station located in the same Gun to the road.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

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, and copies of each summary order issued under statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

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. The fact that the driving of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not good despite the fact that the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was imposed two or more times due to the reason for sentencing, and the nature of the crime is not good, in light of the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level high at the time, and the frequency, contents, and timing of the same criminal power, the responsibility for the crime is not easy, and the possibility of criticism is not small, appears to be unfavorable to the defendant, or that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against it.