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 28, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Incheon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the above summary order became final and conclusive on February 25, 2016. On July 4, 2016, the Incheon District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court and issued a summary order of KRW 5 million on July 20, 2016, and on July 20, 2016, the above summary order became final and conclusive.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 8, 2019, at around 23:55, the Defendant driven BM3 motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.115%, from the roads near the main station located in 95-19, in Michuhol-gu, Incheon, Incheon, to the front roads of 1-ro 1-gil 29 of the same Gu, the Defendant driven BM3 motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of 0.115%.

Accordingly, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previouss before ruling: Application of criminal records, repeated statements, investigation reports, and 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. It is necessary to strictly punish an order to attend a lecture or an order to provide community service in consideration of the social harm of drinking alcohol driving and the purpose of revision of the Road Traffic Act, etc.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to drinking driving in 2015 and 2016, even though he had been punished twice in 2015 and was measured, and the effect of the suppression of the crime is not less severe, the Defendant’s punishment of a fine is determined to be imprisonment. Therefore, the Defendant’s execution of the punishment is suspended by taking into account that the effect of the suppression of the crime is not significant. However, the Defendant’s age, character, environment, details of the crime, and circumstances.