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 January 8, 2007, the Defendant was issued a fine of KRW 4 million by the Seoul Northern District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a fine of KRW 4.5 million by the same court on June 27, 2012, respectively.

At around 10:30 on January 2, 2020, the Defendant driven approximately 10 km from the front road of the Volunteer Center located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si to the front road of the same city, with a charge of about 312-1 of the two sides of the two sides of the same city, and with a charge of about 10 km from the front road of the two sides of the same city, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.092%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act prohibition regulations at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A blood collection report for a drinking driver;

1. Consent to blood collection, written confirmation, request for appraisal, and request for appraisal;

1. Inspection of the results of the control of drinking driving (number 15);

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal history records, attachment of a copy of the same summary order, and application of two copies of the summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

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

1. It is recognized that the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend is that the defendant would not repeat the crime while committing the crime, that the defendant is a drinking driver on the following day after drinking alcohol, and that the defendant has been working at a welfare center as a social worker and received a commendation, etc.

However, even though the defendant had been punished twice in 2007 and 2012, he committed the crime of this case.

The distance of drinking driving of this case is not short, and above all, the blood alcohol concentration (0.092%) of the defendant is high.

In light of the equity in other cases similar to the above circumstances, the choice of imprisonment is inevitable.

The age, character and conduct, family relationship, and crime of the defendant.