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 April 11, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Incheon District Court’s Busan District Court’s Busan Branch, and on June 18, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch, etc. on November 2, 201, and on November 2, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 7 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court’s Incheon District Court’s Seoul Southern District Court’s District Court. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

On September 11, 2019, at around 00:45, the Defendant driven a DN-si car at approximately 600 meters away from a breabbbbb in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Namdong-gu to the front of the Incheon Namdong-gu, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.070% under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, probationary records, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

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 under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires strict punishment in consideration of social harm and the intent of revision of the Road Traffic Act.

Since the punishment of a fine for the accused has been repeatedly imposed several penalties for the crime of this case even though drinking driving was repeatedly punished, the sentence of a fine for the accused is judged not to be so significant that the effect of suppressing the crime of this case is determined, the sentence of a fine for the accused shall be chosen, but the sentence of a fine for the accused shall be suspended in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the drinking water measured at the time of detection is not very severe, the fact that it does not stop the same crime, and that there is no penalty power exceeding the