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

The Defendant received a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million on March 12, 2013 from the Daegu District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 4 million on August 8, 2014, respectively.

On August 19, 2019, at around 22:36, the Defendant driven an E-5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.170% in the section of about 8km from the Do in front of the C cafeteria located in Busan Metropolitan City, via D to the front of the said C cafeteria.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, replys to criminal records, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to prosecution investigation reports (verification of suspect's same kind of power);

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act include the fact that the defendant's history of punishment for drunk driving was twice but the control standard and statutory punishment were significantly strengthened after the implementation of the current Road Traffic Act, and that the blood alcohol concentration level is much higher than the revocation standard, and the risk of recidivism is likely to be repeated. Thus, the defendant requires strict warning and choice of imprisonment with labor. However, there is no imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment; there is no past record of punishment; there is no detention after divorce in 2010; there is an economic distress going beyond the auction until the place that was prepared to make it difficult to prevent fraud; however, it is prepared to reorganize with the encouragement of children and their surroundings; thus, the defendant's wife is complaining of the danger of recidivism.