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 August 16, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Suwon District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million by the same court on May 22, 2013, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 6, 2019, at least 07:45, the Defendant: (a) driven a tea with alcohol level of about 0.101% while under the influence of alcohol at around 3km from the front road of Young-si, Suwon-si B to the long-term distance of the Dongpo-dong Mapo-dong, the Defendant committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment to the same type of judgment) and other Acts and subordinate 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act with regard to the order of community service and the order of compliance has already been punished three times, and the defendant has already committed the crime of drinking alcohol in this case. In light of the fact that the distance of driving at the time was shorter and the degree of blood alcohol concentration was reasonable, and that this case is subject to the revision of the Road Traffic Act to strengthen criminal punishment by raising the statutory penalty for drinking alcohol driving, and that the defendant is deemed to have been aware of it, the nature of the crime is not good.

However, the fact that the defendant is led to confession and reflect, there is still no previous conviction in excess of the fine, one of the above previous departments has been in 2003, the accident has not led to multi-accident, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, attitude, environment, circumstances, circumstances after the crime, etc.