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

[Criminal Power] On June 11, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Daejeon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 23, 2020, at around 01:25, the Defendant driven a B high-speed car with a alcohol level of about 0.107% under the influence of alcohol at the section of about 2 km from around the Gandong-gu Daejeon to Daejeon Pungdong-gu, Daejeon.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control, the report on the situation of a drinking driver, the inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the details of the crackdown, and the making of the enemy;

1. Investigation report (Report on the status of an employee);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports (A), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes (verification of punishment records for drunk driving of a suspect and attachment of the relevant order);

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. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires the punishment corresponding to the crimes that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others.

Even though the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving, the Defendant committed the instant crime and has a high possibility of criticism.

As the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime is high and the distance of driving is not short, the quality of the instant crime and the criminal administration are not easy.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake.

In addition, there was no personal injury due to the instant crime.

On the other hand, the defendant.