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 June 26, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Ulsan District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On March 14, 2020, at around 23:34, the Defendant driven a D-Co car with approximately 100 meters of alcohol level 0.166% while under the influence of alcohol level 0.16% from the south-gu, Ulsan to the front road of the same Gu C.

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;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Previous records: Criminal records, etc., and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports and investigation reports (the same type of criminal records);

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 for drinking prior to the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was high, and the criminal liability is not less and less poor, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In this case, the fact that the risk of traffic accidents has not been realized due to the crime, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime, and the fact that only the punishment of fines has been imposed twice due to other types of crimes except for the previous conviction in the judgment, is favorable to the defendant.

Other circumstances, such as the distance of drunk driving, the age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleading, shall be determined as the disposition.