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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 5, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act by the Incheon District Court.

At around 02:40 on February 10, 2020, the Defendant driven a vehicle of soflurt-turt-purged, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.09%, at approximately 800 meters, from the front day of the Cmat-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyangyang-si to the front day of the entrance of D apartment at the same Gu.

As a result, the Defendant once driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol while under the influence of alcohol despite the power of violating the prohibition of driving such as a motor vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and on the circumstantial statements of drinking drivers;

1. Criminal records as stated: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and summary order-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 Road Traffic Act amended on December 24, 2018 on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (amended on December 24, 2018) strengthens the punishment to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years (one year and not more than two years and not more than six months even if mitigation is performed, and even if the defendant had been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol twice, the fact that the defendant again carried out the driving under the influence of alcohol in this case is disadvantageous to the defendant; the defendant is divided into his mistake; the fact that the above driving under the influence of alcohol in this case has been relatively past days; and the fact that the above driving under the influence of alcohol in this case has been relatively past shall be determined