A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 10, 2005, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Cheongju District Court to a fine of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on August 19, 2013 to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Cheongju District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court on August 19, 201.

At around 17:30 on January 17, 2020, the Defendant driven a car by Egnibing it from a section of about 500 meters from the front of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu to the front parking lot of the same C apartment D, in the state of being drunk of 0.12% of blood alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, the same previous records, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of two copies of the judgment;

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;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years;

2. Not applying the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not yet prepared for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act;

3. The decision-making driving of the sentence is not only abrupt of himself but also a crime in which the life of an unbrush person can be taken, and the risk of such a crime is high.

The defendant, like the records in the judgment, is punished for a drinking driving on several occasions as stated in the judgment, and is again driving under the influence of alcohol, and the responsibility for such crime is not less complicated.

The blood alcohol concentration level is also reasonable.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

There is no power of punishment heavier than a fine due to drinking driving.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, the environment, the motive and background leading to the crime, the method and mode of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case.