A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On September 29, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Central District Court, on April 5, 2013, a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the same court on April 5, 2013, and on December 16, 2013, a summary order of KRW 7 million was issued by the Seoul Western District Court on December 16, 2013, respectively.

[2] Around September 15, 2020: (a) around 00:15, the Defendant driven a c leke car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.077%, while under the influence of alcohol in blood, at approximately 2 km from the front of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front of the new elementary school distance of the same old new elementary school.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement statement report, investigation report, investigation report, inspection report on the actual conditions of the driver in charge of the main duty, field map, etc.;

1. Records of judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (Attachment of the text of the judgment), and application of each summary order statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to reduce the amount of selective punishment for imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection, community service order, and order to attend each lecture, are repeated driving of drinking, and the fact that the Defendant was faced with the accident where the driving of drinking in this case was faced with a signal waiting vehicle, the Defendant appears to have been punished for driving without a license, in addition to the past three times the total driving of drinking in this case, and the fact that it appears that the compliance consciousness was imminent, in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the accident was insignificant, and the fact that the instant drinking volume was not excessive, and that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment heavier than the fine prior to the instant transfer, shall be considered favorable to the Defendant, and that there was no record of punishment heavier than the Defendant.