beta
Text
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.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On December 17, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seo-gu District Court’s Branch Branch Branch on December 17, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for the same crime at the same court on January 22, 2013, and a fine of three million won for the same crime at the Daegu District Court on November 24, 2016 to a suspended sentence of ten months and two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
Nevertheless, at around 23:10 on June 13, 2020, the Defendant driven a car under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.030% at the 1km section from “C” to “C” located in Daegu Northern-gu B, Daegu Northern-gu D entrance.
Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. For the accused's legal statement, his/her circumstantial statement, his/her circumstantial statement, and records before an investigation report that results from the control of drinking and driving: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports;
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 the course of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, considering the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine for the same crime, suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and imprisonment again despite the fact that he/she has been sentenced to a prison sentence, the defendant is led to the crime of this case. Considering the fact that the defendant is led to the crime of this case, the number of drinking alcohol in this case has not been increased to 0.03%, which is the lowest limit of the control value, the defendant's age, occupation, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of