1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On October 10, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Busan District Court’s Branch Branch.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant had any record of violating the provision on prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol once or more times, on June 14, 2020, around 18:19, the Defendant driven the E-Poter truck under the influence of alcohol with approximately 150 meters alcohol content of 0.205% from the 150-meter section from the front side of the Dacheon-si B apartment to the D shooting distance in the same city C.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports (Attachment to a summary order attached to the same type of power), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the summary order;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the driving of drinking alcohol can cause serious damage to the life, body, and property of another person, so the corresponding punishment is needed.

In addition, even though the defendant was punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2006, he/she committed the same crime at once, so his/her responsibility cannot be deemed to be less than that of the defendant.

In addition, measured blood alcohol concentration was 0.205% and it was difficult to drive normally.

(A) The Defendant was aware of the fact of drunk driving by a police officer who was dispatched while driving. However, the Defendant’s perception of all of the crimes and attitude of reflecting it. The Defendant’s character and behavior, age, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, blood alcohol concentration, and previous drinking driving.