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 6, 2012, the Defendant issued, at the Seoul Eastern District Court, a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on October 31, 2014, a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court.

On April 21, 2020, at around 21:10, the Defendant driven a car with a 30-meter car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.123% in front of Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation reports and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of two Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal history records, investigation reports (former and previous records and confirmation), and summary orders;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The fact that it is highly necessary to eradicate the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act; the defendant drives drinking again even if he had the record of punishment for drinking driving; the time interval with the same crime; the defendant's blood alcohol level; driving distance; the defendant's facts charged are recognized and against it; there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; the defendant's age, character and behavior and environment; the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as per the order, taking into account the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the crime