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

On July 5, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the port branch of the Daegu District Court.

At around 01:00 on October 5, 2020, the Defendant driven a B low-water car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.108% from the section of about 4km to around 02:0 on the roads near the transmission details located within the city of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Incheon, to the point of 2.4km in the south-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drunk driving, was driving a motor vehicle again under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, etc.;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years;

2. Crimes of which the sentencing criteria are not set for each judgment of the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

3. The crime of this case is found to be disadvantageous to the defendant, in light of the substance of the crime, even though the defendant had a record of punishment for driving under drinking, and again drives a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.108%, and thus, the criminal liability is grave.

However, the defendant's confession of the crime of this case reflects the wrongness of the defendant, there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, and there is no other defendant.