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 September 14, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a fine of KRW 3 million as a fine at the Daejeon District Court on September 3, 2015, respectively.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a Bchip car.

At around 01:30 on May 21, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car on the front side of the D cafeteria located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon Seo-gu, and the front road, from around 4.7 km, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.12% of blood alcohol concentration.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's report on his legal statement, oral statement, and oral statement;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (2) as a result of the drinking driving control, and the inspection site photograph;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification twice the records of sound 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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. At the time of the instant crime on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle, even though, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was relatively high as 0.12%, as stated in its reasoning, and eventually, the Defendant entered the said motor vehicle on sidewalk block beyond the road boundary by negligence in the state of driving, and was under control by the police who received the report and dispatched under the circumstances where the movement of the motor vehicle became impossible. Accordingly, the Defendant’s risk of traffic accidents caused by drunk driving was reasonable

Therefore, the illegality of the crime of this case is not somewhat weak.

In particular, since the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving in the past, he has a high possibility of criticism.

However, all of the crimes of this case are committed by the defendant.