A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that 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 October 1, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Daegu District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 9, 2020, the Defendant driven an EM5 vehicle from around 150 meters to the front road of D High School located in Daegu-gu, in the state of alcohol of 0.076% of blood alcohol level around 23:43.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act that he shall not drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on detection of a violation of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry report (A), internal investigation report (in-house investigation records of a suspect's drinking driving), investigation status (Attachment to a summary order of the same criminal records), Daegu District Court Decision 2008 High and 28033 shall apply to one copy of the summary order;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had had a record of having been punished one time due to drunk driving, repeated the same crime.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is considerably high to 0.076%.

In light of these points, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant has been aware of the facts of crime, and that there is no record of criminal punishment since November 2008, etc. are considered as favorable to the defendant. In addition, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, family environment, circumstances after the crime, and various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, are considered as ordered.