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 October 27, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of two million won by the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

On March 13, 2020, at around 03:25, the Defendant driven an E-high-est passenger vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.076% under the influence of alcohol in the section of approximately 12 kilometers from the north-gu apartment in Ulsan-gu, B apartment to the front of the same Gu C apartment in the same Gu.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Inquiry reports on criminal records, etc., investigation reports (Attachment of criminal records before and after driving a motor vehicle), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing summary orders;

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

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, along with the sentencing circumstances of the Defendant.

D. Unfavorable circumstances: Although the defendant had been punished three times or more including drinking driving on the record of criminal records as stated in the judgment of the court, he again committed the crime of dry drinking driving, and in light of the social harm and danger of drinking driving, the nature of the crime is heavy, the possibility of criticism is considerable, the long distance driving is driving, etc.; the defendant is aware of his crime and reflects the wrongness; the blood alcohol concentration level is not high as the level of license suspension; the danger of ordinary traffic, such as traffic accidents, etc. due to drinking driving.