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

[criminal power] On September 22, 2006, the Defendant issued, at the Seoul Central District Court, a summary order of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On August 11, 201, a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court, and on December 12, 2011, a summary order of KRW 4 million was issued in the same court.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 22, 2020, the Defendant driven BM5 car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.153% in a section of about 40km from the roads near the Chuncheon City of Gangwon to the mountain village of Hongcheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Seoul. The Defendant driven BM5 car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.153% in a direction of about 40km from the roads near the Chuncheon river of Gangwon-do to the front white intersection.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, repeated statements, summary orders, undisposition failure to take measures, and results of confirmation;

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. 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 was that the Defendant had been punished by drinking alcohol around 2001, around 2002, around August 2006, around 2006, and around December 201, the Defendant driven the instant drinking even if he had the record of punishment due to drinking alcohol, etc., and the number of blood alcohol concentration was considerably high, and the responsibility for the instant crime was not somewhat less.

However, it is against the defendant's wrong recognition of his own mistake, and the occurrence of a traffic accident is not led to the driving of the case, and the driving of the case was done after the lapse of a period from the previous crime of drinking driving, and other reasons.