1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

On June 15, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 from the Daejeon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On August 14, 2020, at around 22:43, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 30 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.082% from the Do in front of the trade aesthetic convenience store in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon to the roads before the D Association located in C.

Accordingly, the defendant has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous for judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on criminal records, repeated statements, investigation reports (Attachment of summary order), and outputs of summary order;

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 Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the instant crime on the grounds of sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was 0.082% of the total alcohol content at the time of providing community service and attending lectures.

Nevertheless, since the defendant increased the risk of traffic accident by driving a motor vehicle, the illegality of the crime is not easy.

In particular, since the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished for drunk driving in the past, it is highly likely to criticize the recidivism of this case.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the previous fine, the defendant's age, health status, character and behavior, family environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be considered as ordered.