beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Criminal Power] On May 15, 2019, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Western District Court.
【Criminal Facts】
At around 10:40 on May 9, 2020, the Defendant driven CEX car from around 600 meters from the road located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Joint-dong to the road adjacent to the same Gu, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.068% of blood alcohol level.
Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accused's legal statement, statement, results of the drinking driving control, inquiry into criminal records, investigation report, and summary order;
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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had a record of punishment once for drunk driving in 2019, was also subject to the instant drinking driving, and a traffic accident occurred due to the instant drinking driving.
On the other hand, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the influence of drinking alcohol in this case and the driving distance, the age, character and behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the fact that the defendant again is expected not to mislead such mistake.