A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On September 16, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 2.5 million won for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court, and on July 29, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for August and September 30, 2014 to a suspended sentence of 3 years for the same crime in the same court.

On January 12, 2020, the Defendant driven an E-ro vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.149% from the 5km section from the front of the Defendant’s right-side path in Macheon-si B to the front day of D in the same city C.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. A written investigation into the actual state of the defendant's oral statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking driving (report on the circumstances of drinking drivers);

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Prior to the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code for discretionary mitigation, the Defendant committed the instant crime of which drinking is conducted under the influence of drinking, even though he had the record of being punished four times due to drinking, and even if he had the record of being punished four times due to drinking.149%.

The Defendant had shocked to the utility pole due to the drinking driving of this case.

In light of the fact that the drinking level of the crime of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), which was subject to criminal punishment as above, was 0.1% more, and the drinking driving level of this case also exceeds 0.149%, and that the defendant was subject to the suspended sentence for each of the crimes of the drinking alcohol concentration of 0.311% and 0.191% under the influence of alcohol in 2014, and also led to the crime of this case even if he was subject to the suspended sentence for each of the above crimes, it is determined that the suspended sentence of imprisonment would no longer prevent recidivism.

However, this case.