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 January 11, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court on January 11, 201, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court on June 11, 2007, and was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant violated the provision of the Road Traffic Act prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol, on July 21, 2019, at around 20:58, the Defendant driven a D motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.085% from the 2km section of approximately 2km to the Jinyang-gun, Cheongyang-do, Cheongyang-do, Cheongyang-do, Cheongyang-do, Cheongyang-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, investigation reports, and investigation reports;

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, and circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, which are favorable to the fact that the defendant has been already punished four times of a fine for the same kind of crime: The confession and reflect of the fact that the defendant has been finally punished, and that eight years have passed since