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 December 15, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of one million won at the Seoul Northern District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 15, 201, and a summary order of a fine of eight million won at the same court on November 4, 2014 as the same crime.

【Criminal Facts】

Around 05:00 on January 19, 2020, the Defendant driven a Crest Motor Vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.222% at a section of about 1k from the 2mn-dong Yandong-gu to the adjacent road of the B Apartment-si, Seoyang-si.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiry the results of the drinking driving control;

1. The actual condition of traffic accidents;

1. Before judgment: Reference records to criminal records and reference records and application of each summary order under statutes;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for orders to attend lectures and orders to provide community service;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years;

2. Where the sentencing criteria are not set.

3. The Defendant’s criminal act of this case, which was sentenced, is a case where the Defendant had been punished for drunk driving several times, but the blood alcohol concentration level higher than 0.22%, is deemed to be 0.22%. In view of the fact that the Defendant’s criminal act of this case was committed again.

However, considering the fact that the defendant stated that he/she is against the facts charged, the fact that he/she has no penalty heavier than that is favorable to the defendant, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, health status, family relationship, means and result of the crime, etc., and the various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in