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 June 5, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 years of suspended execution for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court's Ansan Branch.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 8, 2019, the Defendant driven an E Cost Ba 6 Track Cargo Vehicles while under the influence of approximately 0.114% of blood alcohol concentration from the front road in Ansan-si B to the front road in the same city D.

As a result, the Defendant violated the regulations on the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving or the prohibition of refusal to measure drinking more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the confirmation of occurrence of the case, investigation report (report on the situation of a drinking driver), notification on the results of the drinking driving control, investigation report (Attachment, such as number-type camera Kamerm and photograph, etc.), investigation report (Attachment to the report on the results of the drinking driving control); and

1. Before ruling: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (prior records and confirmation of suspect's refusal of drinking alcohol measurement);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act that 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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the order to provide community service and attend lectures is that the Defendant committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol even though he had the record of punishment for refusing to measure drinking around 2008, and that the Defendant was under high blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime of drinking alcohol driving and was not short of the driving distance is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and that the defendant was not punished for the same crime for a considerable period after the crime of refusal to measure alcohol was committed.

The order is issued in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the defendant's occupation, age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, and circumstances after the crime.