1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

2.Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 18, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Daejeon District Court.

On August 8, 2020, the Defendant driven a Frane car with a 0.151% alcohol concentration in blood from around 400 meters to around 400 meters from the front of the alcohol house, “C” in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, to the front of the same Gu D, while driving a Frane car with a alcohol content of about 0.151% under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Reporting of a traffic accident (1) (2);

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. An accident scene photograph;

1. Previous convictions: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report-based previous convictions and results of confirmation;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of protection observation, community service, and order to attend a lecture was that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime was higher than 0.151%, and the Defendant’s drinking distance at the time of enforcement was higher than that of the instant crime.

As above, the defendant driven a motor vehicle in the state of high-level driving, and eventually caused a traffic accident by taking the parked vehicle, and the illegality of the crime is serious.

At the time of regulating drinking driving, the Defendant refused to sign on the statement report on the situation of the driver who was placed in driving, and sent the police officer an attitude of refusing to take a drinking test twice, i.e., “a revocation of a driver’s license” and “a revocation of a driver’s license.” The circumstances after the crime are very poor.

B. In the past, the Defendant had been punished for driving under drinking as stated in the previous judgment, but has been driving again under the influence of drinking, so there is a high possibility of criticism.

This is the same kind of defendant.