A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that 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

[Power of violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act] The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Gwangju District Court on January 10, 2012 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 15, 2020, the Defendant driven Eschton car at approximately 200 meters from the front side of the B apartment road in Gwangjubuk-gu to the front side of the D in Gwangju Northern-gu, about 00 meters, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.079% of blood alcohol level around 23:18.

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. A written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Collection of blood as a result of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes (verification of criminal records and two times for a suspect's drunk driving);

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, committed the instant crime again even though he/she was punished once and once due to a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and even if he/she was punished once due to the previous drunk driving, and thus, committed the instant crime. Therefore, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment in light of

However, taking into account the circumstances that may be considered such as the fact that the drinking alcohol level in this case was higher at time between the previous conviction and the date of the crime in this case, the number of drinking alcohol in this case was not higher than that of other cases, the Defendant did not have any past record of punishment other than the above previous conviction, and the Defendant’s mistake is divided, the sentence is to be mitigated within the scope of the punishment, and the execution of the sentence is to be suspended, and the sentence is to be determined as per Disposition.

(A) In light of the criminal records of the defendant, the defendant does not simultaneously order his/her participation in the law-abiding lecture.