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 May 25, 2006, the Defendant was issued a summary order of one million won or more for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court, and on December 31, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of two million won or more for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 24, 2019, the Defendant, despite the power of violating the prohibition of drinking driving, driven Epoter II trucks at approximately 500 meters from the epoter II truck on the front side of Sungnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the front road of Sungnam-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in a state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.127%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of driving under the influence of alcohol, report on the situation of a driver under the influence of alcohol, and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (verification of sound driving records);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant facts charged and reflects the order to attend a lecture and the order

In 2006 and 2009, there is no particular criminal power in addition to the previous conviction of a fine for drinking, and the interval between the previous drinking driving and the present drinking driving is relatively relatively.

On the other hand, drinking driving is highly likely to infringe on the life and property of others as well as himself, so it is highly necessary to strictly punish him, and the blood alcohol concentration of this case is relatively high.

Other circumstances shown in pleadings, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.