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

On July 3, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Ulsan District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on May 25, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the same court as a fine for the same crime.

At around 23:00 on September 12, 2020, the Defendant driven a F low-speed car at a distance of about 800 meters from the front of the “C” restaurant in Yangsan City B to the front of the “E” road in the same city D, with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.110%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstances of drinking drivers, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of drinking drivers);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc., inquiry reports and application of 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. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. The fact that the Defendant committed the crime of drinking alcohol in this case even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level at the time is high, and that the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not minor, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The fact that the distance from the driving under the influence of alcohol is short, the risk of traffic accidents is not realized due to this case, the defendant recognizes the crime and is in depth against the defendant, and the fact that there is no particular criminal power except for the previous conviction in the judgment, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, all the circumstances such as the motive and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. and the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the arguments are considered.