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 February 6, 2003, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the government branch of the Seoul District Court on February 6, 2003. On April 18, 2005, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime at the Incheon District Court on April 18, 2005. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on September 27, 2012. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to the summary order of KRW 8 months and suspended execution for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence) at the Seoul Western District Court on September 16, 2014. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to the summary order of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On November 16, 2019, at around 23:50, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle E-E in the state of alcohol with approximately 0.097% alcohol in the section of about 300 meters from the front of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B to the front of the D Hospital located in the same Gu C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 62-2(1) of the Act on Probation, etc., and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., was sentenced to a fine for four times in the past for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the past. On September 2014, the Defendant again committed the instant crime of the same kind even though he/she had the record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act

In light of the fact that the defendant himself repeated an act of drinking driving with a high social risk, the responsibility of the defendant for the crime of this case is very heavy.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the law.

After committing the instant crime, the Defendant.