A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On July 19, 2007, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court. On May 1, 2008, in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, the summary order of KRW 2 million was issued and confirmed on August 26, 201, and on August 26, 2013, the summary order of KRW 5 million was issued and confirmed.

[Criminal Facts] On August 22, 2020, at around 03:23, the Defendant: (a) driven a motor vehicle in Emea with a blood alcohol concentration of approximately 0.106% at the distance of about 20km from the front place of the head office located in Asan City B to the D dormitory parking lot located in Asan City; and (b) violated the prohibition on refusal to drive alcohol or to measure drinking alcohol at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking-driving and the circumstantial statement of the drinking-driving driver;

1. Detection site photographs;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports-related 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;

2. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the judgment is not prepared in the sentencing criteria.

3. The decision-making driving of a sentence is a crime which may bring the life of a person as well as his own, and is highly dangerous.

The defendant, like the records in the judgment, has been punished as a drinking driving multiple times, but driving is again conducted, and the responsibility for such crime is not less complicated.

The blood alcohol concentration level is not too low.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

There is no power of punishment heavier than a fine.

(b) other.