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

[criminal power] On April 12, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million at the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul to a fine of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on January 7, 2008), KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on January 7, 2008), and KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on February 12, 2009.

【Criminal Facts】

On November 5, 2019, at around 21:30, the Defendant driven a DNA car with a blood alcohol content of about 0.079% while under the influence of alcohol at approximately 100 meters from a 100-meter section around the Daegu Jung-gu B market to the front of the same Gu building.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports (report accompanied by a summary order issued by the criminal records of punishment for the same type of crime);

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. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The court shall determine the punishment as ordered in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, which are favorable to the fact that there have been several times of punishment for the same kind of crime: confession and reflects; the defendant has no same punishment power after around 2