A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four 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

[criminal power] On November 2, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Suwon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On January 7, 2010, a summary order of KRW 2.5 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court, and on October 15, 2014, a summary order of KRW 7 million was issued by the Seoul Central District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

Nevertheless, at around 22:40 on June 13, 2020, the Defendant driven a D lele-ro car while under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.168% in the section of about 500 meters from the Young-gu, Suwon-si B to the same road in the same Gu C.

As a result, the defendant, even though he had been punished for a drunk driving, has re-driving and violated it more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), records on the measurement of drinking, and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of four copies of a 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the order to provide community service and attend lectures was that the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment four times due to drunk driving.

At the time of the case, the blood alcohol concentration was very high, and the risk of the accident occurred due to the locking on the road while driving.

In this context, if the purpose of the amendment of the statutory penalty is increased, the nature of the crime is not weak.

However, considering the fact that the defendant is led to confession and reflect, that is relatively old compared to some previous cases, and that the accident does not lead to a multi-accident, the defendant's other matters are considered.