A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On August 14, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 by the Ulsan District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million by the same court on June 30, 201, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 20, 2019, at around 22:17, the Defendant driven a cnish-do car under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.091% of alcohol level from a 2km section of approximately 2km from a Do near Ulsan-gu B market to the prosperity road near Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu. The Defendant driven a cnish-do car under the influence of alcohol leveling to 0.091%.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records and copies of each summary order;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in spite of his/her previous record of punishment twice due to drunk driving, and the quality of the crime is not good. The fact that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level at the time does not lower than that of the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant, or that the defendant shows his/her attitude to recognize and reflect his/her criminal act, and some of the circumstances can be taken into account in this case, and the occurrence of a traffic accident due to this case's driving of alcohol does not occur.