A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 1, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Seoul Eastern District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On May 24, 2020, at around 18:25, the Defendant driven a DMW car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.217% from the 10km section from the front of the funeral hall of the C Hospital located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front road of the Goyang-dong, Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City to the Hanyang-ro 254 M2.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Previous records as stated in the Defendant’s statutory statement, the circumstantial statement, the report on drunk driving, and the report on 112 reported cases as a result of the control of drinking driving: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports (verification of the same attached 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. Probation, community service order and order to attend lectures shall be ruled as ordered for the reasons of not less than Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has a high possibility of criticism by repeating the same criminal record.

Furthermore, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration of 0.217%, 0.217%, driving free, maximizes the risk of drinking driving, and there is a concern that the risk of human life accidents might be caused.

(In light of the situation of control, it is inferred that the criminal defendant's main route or method was very abnormal.The drinking driving needs to be strict considering the social danger and harm of the crime threatening the life and body of himself/herself and others.

The current Road Traffic Act has greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment due to the social demand for eradicating the harmful effects of drinking driving.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and divided the wrong facts, etc. shall be considered as favorable circumstances.