A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On November 10, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of four million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court on November 10, 2006; on November 18, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of five million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence) at the same court; on November 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence) at the Jeonju District Court on November 17, 2015

【Criminal Facts】

On May 17, 2020, at around 16:39, the Defendant driven a Gschnton car with approximately approximately 200 meters section from the front of “Dcafeteria” to the front of “F” in E, “F” on the roads in the C Station B in the following cities: (a) while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.127%.

Therefore, even though the defendant was punished for a drunk driving, the defendant was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Notification of the results of the crackdown on drunk driving, the report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, the investigation report (report on the situation of a drinking driver), the report on internal investigation (as to the case of a drinking driver), and the investigation report (Attachment toCCTV image, etc.);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records and other inquiries, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

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. In view of the fact that the Defendant committed a crime of drinking alcohol, even though he/she had the history of punishment several times due to drinking driving and refusing to measure drinking, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant case is not 0.127%, the Defendant’s corresponding punishment is inevitable.

However, the defendant is going to not drive under the influence of alcohol again against his mistake.