A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 November 5, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2,00,00,000 from the Daejeon District Court's Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court to a fine of KRW 2,50,000 as a crime of violation of Road Traffic Act (driving) and a fine of KRW 2,50,000 as a same crime in the same court on February 18, 201.

[2] On June 14, 2018, the Defendant driven a 14 ton truck under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.052% from the section of approximately 2 km from the road in Hongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, to the road in front of the DNA telecom, while under the influence of alcohol leveling about 0.052%.

Ultimately, the Defendant, who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the said provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notice of the result of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol, a written report on the details of crackdown and a statement in circumstances;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: In inquiry about criminal history, summary order, and the text of the judgment [the Defendant, while drinking until June 13, 2018, was prevented from driving alcohol at around 01:40 on June 14, 2018, and on the same day, the Defendant measured the alcohol concentration at 0.052% of the blood alcohol level in light of the same day as the result of the measurement of the Defendant’s drinking (equipment measurement) around 01:49.

In light of the fact that each individual's blood alcohol level between 30 minutes and 90 minutes after drinking has reached the highest level, and that each individual's blood level has been generally known to reduce approximately 0.08% from 0.08% to 0.03% (average approximately 0.015%) per hour (see Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do3360, Jun. 12, 2014; 2013Do6285, Oct. 24, 2013). In light of the fact that the Defendant had been driving at the time of the end of 2 hours after the end of her driving, the Defendant appears to have belonged to the lower level rather than the alcohol level at the time of her driving, and thus, considering that the permissible error range of the drinking gauge is about 0.05% at the time of her driving, it can be recognized that the Defendant was 05% or more of alcohol level at the time of her driving.

Therefore, we cannot accept the arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel).