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

On October 18, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 by the Changwon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act. On June 20, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 by the Changwon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On November 26, 2019, at around 02:55, the Defendant: (a) started in front of a mutually influence restaurant located in the Seocho-gu, Changcheon-gu, Changwon-si; (b) driven a DNA SM6 car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.098% in a section of approximately 200 meters to the front of the “C” restaurant located in the Seocho-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving;

1. Records before judgment: Criminal records, repeated statements, and application of each summary order 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 on the grounds of sentencing is that the Road Traffic Act is amended to the purport that the general preventive effect of punishment is achieved by means of suppressing driving under the influence of alcohol, eradicating social damage caused by drunk driving, establishing a traffic order, etc. The defendant, including the previous conviction stated in the judgment, even though he was punished three times for driving under the influence of alcohol, once again drives under the influence of alcohol without the awareness of the danger of drunk driving, and the defendant's degree of driving under the influence of alcohol is disadvantageous.

However, the sentencing conditions stipulated by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., should be considered in light of the fact that the defendant did not repeat the crime in this case while against the crime in this case; that the defendant was not subject to a punishment exceeding the fine due to drunk driving; that the defendant was not subject to a punishment due to drinking driving