A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

[criminal power] On January 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court, and a summary order of KRW 7 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court on December 8, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

On August 24, 2020, the Defendant driven an EM5 vehicle from around 3km to D's front road located in Daejeon Jung-gu Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.062% of blood alcohol level around 20:0 on August 24, 2020.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2) (actual survey report);

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control, and inquiry into the results of the drinking driving control;

1. An accident site photograph;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (4-time confirmation reports on the suspect's records of driving under the same influence of alcohol);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the provision of community service and the order to attend a lecture is an offense that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others, and there is a need for the corresponding punishment, and the blood alcohol level at the time of the crime is relatively high than 0.062%, and the defendant committed the crime of drinking driving in this case even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving in 2016, and the defendant committed the crime of drinking driving in this case, and the traffic accident that causes other vehicles due to drinking driving in this case, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and opposed to his mistake, and even if he committed the crime of this case, the degree of damage related to the traffic accident was relatively minor.