Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 20, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million from the Daegu District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On November 9, 2019, at around 02:50, the Defendant driven an Efranion vehicle while under influence of about 0.149% of blood alcohol concentration at approximately 500 meters from the Do in Daegu Suwon-gu B.

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 statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs at the time of crackdown;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, replys to criminal records, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution investigation report (verification of the same criminal records as the suspect);

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. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act has three times or more, the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Act on Probation is that the enforcement of the sentence is postponed by taking into account the fact that the control standard and statutory punishment have been significantly strengthened after the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act, and that the blood alcohol concentration level exceeds the revocation standard, as well as the previous records of the crime, and that the previous records of the same kind of the crime, as well as the previous records of the crime, are deemed to have been strongly driven by leaving the highest enforcement standard, even though they seem to have been strong enough to regulate the driving circumstances, and thus, they are unlikely to repeat the crime, and there is a lack of reflective light as to the driving circumstances, so they need a strict warning and choice of imprisonment with prison labor: Provided, That the execution of the sentence shall be suspended by taking into account the fact that there is no criminal history of imprisonment without prison labor or more, the defendant's age and occupation, etc., and it seems that the strict management and supervision of the probation officer for the prevention of recidivism