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 January 6, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from Daejeon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, a summary order of KRW 2 million from the same court on January 30, 2009 to a fine of KRW 2 million for the same crime, and a summary order of KRW 4 million from the same court on March 31, 2010 to the same crime, respectively.

On June 29, 2020, at around 23:35, the Defendant driven a DNA-learning car under the influence of alcohol of about 0.063% of blood alcohol concentration from the distance near the Soyang University Hospital to the front road in the same Gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon to approximately 6km.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Report on detection of drinking drivers, report on the results of crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstantial statements of drinking drivers, and investigation report (report on the circumstantial situations of drinking drivers);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports and summary orders;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, or 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 under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the order to attend a course again leads to driving under the influence of alcohol in this case even though the defendant had a previous conviction on the ground of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act. However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant's mistake was recognized and the blood alcohol level was 0.063% at the time of the instant case; (b) the defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.063%; (c)