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

Punishment of the crime

On March 11, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court, and on October 19, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a period of ten months.

Nevertheless, at around 03:00 on June 13, 2020, the Defendant driven B K5 cars under the influence of alcohol with approximately 1.6m alcohol concentration of about 0.178% from the roads near the Dong-dong Administrative Welfare Center located in 38, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-ro, 147, to the roads front of the Ulsan-gu Multi-dong, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do, to the roads.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Investigation report on the defendant's legal statement, statement, results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the statement on the status of drinking drivers (report on the circumstances of drinking drivers);

1. Previous convictions indicated in 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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant committed the instant crime since the period of probation was too much and less than one year, despite the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine due to drunk driving and imprisonment with prison labor, as stated in its reasoning, despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished by a suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed the instant crime. The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant case is considerably higher than 0.178%, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime exceeds 0.209% and 0.203%. The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the criminal facts in the previous criminal records in its judgment is also deemed to be very lacking in the awareness about driving in a chronic state. The Defendant was temporarily parked on the first line, which was standing on the road at the time of detection, and thus, there was a possibility of traffic accident. On the other hand, the Defendant recognized the Defendant to commit the instant crime and there was no other force punished except for the previous conviction