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 September 29, 2001, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating road traffic law (driving alcohol), a summary order of KRW 700,000 for a fine for the same crime in the same court on February 2, 2009, and a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime on April 24, 2018 in the Daejeon District Court's Incheon Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court.

On September 16, 2020, the Defendant driven a DNA-learning car from Asan-si C parking lot located in Asan-si B with a alcohol content of 0.178% from Sep. 16, 2020 to D-learning 4 km in the same Si-si 220.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries into the results of crackdown on driving alcohol, reports on the situation of the driver under the influence of alcohol, investigation reports (report on the situation of the driver under the influence of alcohol), and field photographs;

1. Previous convictions: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes after inquiring about criminal history and reporting the results of previous convictions;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (or choice of imprisonment);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as observation of protection and order to provide community service and order to attend lectures, recognition of and reflects the defendant's mistake, and mother's mother is off;

As soon as possible, the purport that the taxi was committed against the instant crime because the taxi was not fluored, the Defendant’s family was fluored, the Defendant’s family was fluording, and the Defendant was punished three times by a fine due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the fact that the Defendant was punished three times by a fine due to the same crime, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime; the Defendant’s age, sex, behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case shall be determined as ordered by the text.