A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Seogu District Court's branch court on October 1, 2010, and on October 27, 2010, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 4 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

At around 19:40 on May 10, 2019, the Defendant driven a DNA-based car in the state of approximately 0.198% alcohol concentration in blood at approximately 100 meters from May 10, 201 to the front road of C located in the same city-based site in front of the indoor packaging set forth in the same city-based site.

As a result, the defendant, who has been punished not less than twice due to drinking driving, was driving again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Consent to blood collection and written confirmation;

1. Notification of the results of blood driving control;

1. Records of judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A), investigation reports (Attachment of the same type of power, attachment of the summary order - Two copies of the summary order);

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

1. In light of the fact that the statutory punishment for the drinking-driving crime has been continuously aggravated due to serious social harm caused by drinking-driving and changes in the legal sentiment of the general public, etc., the crime of drinking-driving is in need of strict punishment.

The defendant has been punished twice due to drinking driving and once for refusing to measure drinking.

At the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the blood alcohol concentration was relatively high by 0.198%, as well as the traffic accident.

(However, motor vehicle insurance has not been prosecuted on the motor vehicle operated by the defendant. The favorable circumstances: the defendant committed the crime of this case.