A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

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 20, 2007, the Defendant was issued, respectively, a summary order of KRW 1,50,000,000,000 by the Daejeon District Court as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on December 4, 2014, by the same court.

On February 22, 2020, at around 22:20, the Defendant driven a F Poter under the influence of alcohol content 0.157% with a section of about 10 meters from the side of the C coffee shop located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, with the face of the E elementary school located in the same Gu D.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Report on detection of drinking drivers, report on the results of crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstantial statements of drinking drivers, and investigation report (report on the circumstantial situations of drinking drivers);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of summary order, written judgment, and inquiry report;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, or 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 under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the order to attend a class had been punished by a fine of one million won in 2007 due to drunk driving in 2007, a fine of one million won in 2014, and a fine of one million won in 2015. However, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished by a fine of one million won in 2007, a fine of one million won in 2014, and a fine of one million won in 2015 at the time of the instant case, he continued to have been parked while driving another's cargo on the road without permission even after he/she was parked, and he/she continued to open the door of the cargo operated by the owner of Ortoba, and did not stop until he/she deducted the next key. However, the defendant's error was recognized, and all other sentencing conditions in the record, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, shall be determined as ordered by

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving a F Poter freight vehicle.

The defendant.