A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six 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 December 16, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Seoul Southern District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on January 2, 2014, a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Incheon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Although the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving more than twice as above, around May 9, 2019, around 23:40, at approximately 700 meters from the roads near the Incheon Seogu Office located in Seogu, Seogu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, to the roads in the same Gu B, and operated a car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.161% from the 700-meter section to the roads in the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and investigation reports (report on confirmation of the same type of suspect records)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16307, Jun. 25, 2019);

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The main sentence of Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Probation Act, which led to re-offending even though the defendant was punished twice for the same crime as in the judgment.

At the time, the drinking water level is higher than 0.161%, and it is difficult to drive normally due to drinking in light of the fact that the vehicle is operated to the left while driving the vehicle, the vehicle is invaded by the report and the telegraph is received.

However, the defendant does not have any other criminal record except the punishment records for the above violation of the Road Traffic Act, and has been endeavoring to reduce the risk of recidivism by disposing of the vehicle after the case.

The crimes are against the crimes.

In full view of the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as above.