A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 August 11, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Ulsan District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2 million by the same court on October 26, 2012, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 4, 2019, at around 06:10, the Defendant driven a car Eindo from about 2 km to D’s adjacent road in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol of 0.12% of blood alcohol concentration.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition on drinking under the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (report on confirmation of the same criminal records), and copies of each summary order applicable;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018);

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. At the time of the enforcement of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level high at the time of sentencing, which is not good to the quality of the crime, even if there were the records of punishment twice for the same kind of crime, the crime of this case is not less severe, and the possibility of criticism is not small, and the Defendant appears to have committed the crime against the Defendant, or the Defendant’s attitude to recognize and reflect it, and the Defendant was going to work before after drinking the alcohol prior to the crime of this case.