A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 16, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on September 12, 2016.

On August 15, 2019, at around 04:55, the Defendant driven a C Orler vehicle at a section of about 2 km from the front of the dialogue-dong, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City to the front of the same Gu B apartment zone under the influence of alcohol content of 0.184%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement and investigation report of a drinking driver (verification of the record of sound driving);

1. Criminal records, inquiry reports, personal confinement status, judgment, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the summary order;

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. The Defendant, with the reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act, was under the influence of criminal punishment nine times including imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of sound driving), and in particular, on September 12, 2016, was sentenced to one year for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of sound driving) on February 16, 2016, and did not commit the instant crime even though it was under the period of repeated crime after the execution of the said sentence was completed.

The fact that blood alcohol concentration is higher than 0.184%, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious damage to the life, body, and property of others as well as himself/herself, and there is a need for punishment corresponding thereto.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case, and the fact that the branch including the defendant's women want to find the defendant's wife against the defendant is considered as favorable to the defendant.

In addition, various factors of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relations, motive and circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are shown in the records and arguments in this case.