A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On November 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daegu District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On July 24, 2017, the Defendant had a total of four times of criminal punishment for a drunk driving.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 4, 2019, at around 19:48, the Defendant driven C 125c meba while under the influence of alcohol with 0.337% alcohol level 0.37%, and driving a c 125c meba while under the influence of alcohol level 0.337% in the section of approximately 200 meters.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle or tram while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving regulations not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports (A) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation are as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment due to a drunk driving and committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime; (b) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol driving on January 26, 2016; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine by repeating on January 29, 2016, which was three days after the date when he was sentenced to a fine; and (d) again committed the instant crime on January 29, 2016; and (c) driving the instant crime while having a high blood alcohol concentration, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant to a sentence.

However, it is wrong that a traffic accident caused by drinking driving has not occurred frequently, that the defendant is a child supported by him/her, and that he/she is receiving medical treatment related to alcohol.