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.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】 On January 15, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the port of the Daegu District Court.

On September 10, 2020, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for one year and six months as a crime of fraud in the Daegu District Court Port Branch branch on September 10, 202, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2020.

【Criminal Administration” around 20:00 on August 7, 2020, the Defendant driven a fluorous vehicle with a blood alcohol content of about 1km from the front side of the C North shop located in the Northern-gu, North-si, North-si, North-si, to the front distance of the Ehigh School located in the same Gu D to the same Gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reporting on detection of any case of the violation of the Road Traffic Act, reporting on the state of the driver, reporting on the state of the driver, and reporting on the control of the drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accused's legal statements, criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (Attachment to judgment on records of sound driving), and investigation reports (related to facts pending trial);

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that probation, community service, and lecture attendance order’s blood alcohol concentration for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being able to be detained for the latter concurrent crimes as indicated in the judgment, that this is the second drinking driving, that the Defendant disposed of the car as indicated in the judgment, and that it reflects the Defendant’s depth of mistake, and that other various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments, such as the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment