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

[Criminal Power] On August 18, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Daejeon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 6, 2020, at around 22:35, the Defendant driven a FST5 car while under influence of about 20 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.071% from the 20-meter section from the front side of the Seo-gu Daejeon to the front side of the Eart located D.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the driver, the report on the situation of the driver, and the report on the status of the driver;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A) and investigation reports (one-time confirmation of criminal records of drunk driving);

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the provision of community service and order to attend a lecture is an offense that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others, and there is a need for the corresponding punishment. The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime is relatively high than 0.071%, and the Defendant, even though he had been sentenced to a fine due to drinking driving in 2014, has also been driving under the influence of alcohol, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and at the time, the defendant was found to move about about 20 meters of the vehicle to get a substitute driver, and the distance of the defendant's driving is relatively short, and the defendant is proceeding with the individual rehabilitation procedure.