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

[Power of violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act] On October 23, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3.5 million by the Gwangju District Court for a fine of KRW 3.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and 1.5 million by the same court on October 12, 2016 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 23:20 on April 17, 2020, the Defendant driven an E-motor vehicle from approximately 3km section to the front road of Gwangju-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju-gu, 0.19% of alcohol level, while under the influence of alcohol level 0.19%.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, investigation reports (including the same type of power and the summary order attached thereto) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she was punished twice due to a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and was punished once due to the previous drunk driving, and there is no time interval between the previous drunk driving and the instant crime, and there is no high interval between the previous drunk driving and the date of the instant crime, and the criminal intent to observe the instant case is weak, and thus, even if the instant sentencing is likely to affect the Defendant’s occupation, the Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor.

However, the punishment shall be mitigated in consideration of extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has no power to be punished heavier than imprisonment with prison labor, the fact that the defendant repents his mistake, etc., and then the punishment shall be imposed.