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 April 29, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court.

On September 4, 2019, at around 03:05, the Defendant driven a F Poter vehicle at a section of approximately 500 meters from the vicinity of Ulsan-gu C to E in D while under the influence of alcohol of 0.175%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking driving (blood collection result), report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver (blood collection result), consent to blood collection, confirmation letter, response to requests for appraisal, and written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal records, etc., investigation reports, and management of reports on detection of drinking materials;

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 circumstances that are disadvantageous: the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had the record of punishment for drinking driving in 2004 and 2010, and again committed the crime of this case while he had a significant degree of blood alcohol concentration, and the crime is deemed to be a drinking driving that threatens the safety of general traffic and thus the crime's nature is heavy and the possibility of criticism is considerable: The defendant's crime is recognized and the crime is against the wrong, the distance of drinking driving is not long, and the danger of general traffic, such as the traffic accident, etc., is often dangerous.