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

On October 12, 2009, the defendant was issued a summary order of two million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court.

On June 17, 2020, at around 22:03, the Defendant driven a e-manufactured car with approximately 10 meters section from the front of the restaurant where the Defendant was unaware of the trade name in Yangsan City B to the front of the D in the same city C, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.137%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. An inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, a report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, 13 copies of a photograph of a black stuffing video, and one CD;

1. Inquiry reports, such as criminal records, investigation reports (verification of the same criminal records), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing summary orders;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, along with the sentencing circumstances of the Defendant.

The defendant was punished for drunk driving in 2004 and 2009, but he again committed the crime of this case, and again committed the crime of this case in light of the social harm and danger of drunk driving, the possibility of criticism is very heavy, and the blood alcohol concentration is a high level that constitutes the grounds for revocation of license: The defendant's crime is recognized and the defendant has committed the crime, the distance of drunk driving is short, and the danger of general traffic, such as traffic accident, has not actually occurred due to the drunk driving. The crime of this case is committed.