A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On October 26, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the Busan District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on February 8, 2017, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 27, 2018, at around 06:30, the Defendant driven a D low-speed car with a alcohol level of about 0.063% alcohol level from the front side of the military base located in Ulsan Nam-gu B to the front side of the military base distance in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in spite of the fact that the defendant had been punished for two times of drinking, and the nature of the crime is not good, the frequency and contents of the same criminal records, and the fact that the criminal liability is not less strict in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, or the defendant's attitude to recognize and reflect his criminal act, and the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant shows that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is too obvious.