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, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daejeon District Court on the same day in addition to the issuance of a summary order of KRW 4 million.

On June 13, 2020, at around 23:30 on June 13, 2020, the Defendant driven a sealed franchison vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.152% at a section of approximately 500 meters of alcohol level in the front of D in the singing room in the Chungcheongnam-gun B market.

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. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of investigation reports (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver) as a result of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to a summary order of the same kind of power of a suspect);

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. 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 of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the ground of the sentencing of the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant crime, which led to the high level of 0.152% of the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant was inaccurate at the time of enforcement, and the walk was relatively high, such as the big distance.

In addition, the defendant was temporarily set away on the road by stopping a vehicle on the road, and the defendant was under control by a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report.

As above, the defendant has significantly increased the risk of traffic accident by driving a motor vehicle, and interfered with the passage of the above vehicle on the road, and the illegality of the crime is serious.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished three times due to drinking driving in the past, so there is a high possibility of criticism for recidivism.

However, the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects them, and the defendant is in the past.