A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

On July 3, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,00,000,000 from the Suwon District Court on the land site for the violation of the Road Traffic Act as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking), and a fine of KRW 3 million from the Suwon District Court on January 29, 2019 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking).

Criminal facts

From January 7, 2019 to April 16, 2019, the Defendant was under the suspension of the validity of driving license for 100 days, but around April 10, 2019, the Defendant driven DK5 automobiles while under the influence of alcohol of about 0.117% from the section of approximately 1k-meter from the roads near the string road of Pyeongtaek-si to Pyeongtaek-si B and C roads.

Accordingly, the defendant, whose effect of driving license is suspended, has been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again even though he has violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and investigation reports (a summary order attached to a suspect's drinking record);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1), Article 152 subparagraph 1, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

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

1. The Defendant’s criminal liability is not less complicated in light of the fact that the two times of punishment for the same type of crime as the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was re-offending despite the history of the two times of punishment, and that the degree of danger was high by driving in the state of 0.117% of blood alcohol concentration.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that there is no criminal record beyond the fine, that there is no re-offending due to the confession of the crime of this case, the disposal of the vehicle in possession, etc., and that there is a family member to support.