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 January 27, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the Seoul Western District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and KRW 2 million for the same crime at the Seoul Northern District Court on April 8, 2019, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On November 30, 2019, around 08:20 on November 30, 2019, the Defendant driven an E-7 car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 800 meters from the vicinity of the “C” club located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, to the vicinity of Gangnam-gu Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employer-employed driver and the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver;

1. Control note and report processing statement of 112 reported case;

1. Previous records before ruling: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment of criminal records), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each summary order;

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. Probation and lecture attendance order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code requires that the defendant should be supervised so as not to drive under drinking, considering the fact that the defendant repeats drinking, and the defendant repeats drinking. In particular, probation is specifically ordered;

The circumstances controlled by 112 Report of the 112 Report are poor while driving on the road, and the high drinking water of this case, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant, and the driving distance has not yet been set as much as possible, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant that the defendant had no record of punishment heavier than the previous fine of this case, and there are other arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.