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 this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 8, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Goyang Branch of the District Court on November 8, 2007, and on September 11, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of eight months for the same crime in the same court, and was sentenced to a fine of five million won for the same crime in the same court on January 28, 2014.

At around 23:30 on January 3, 2020, the Defendant violated the prohibition on drinking under the influence of alcohol twice or more by driving a motor vehicle with approximately 4km alcohol concentration of about 0.057% at the 1080 km-ro radius from around 23:50 on the front of a mutually influent restaurant located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seoyang-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement of the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving, and entry into the following inquiries;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, suspect's previous records, summary orders, and application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes stated in the judgment;

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 to mitigate small amount;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the order to provide community service and order to attend a lecture is three times or more, but the defendant was punished for drunk driving, and the distance of drinking driving is not shorter.

However, there is no high drinking level of the crime of this case, and more than six years have passed since the defendant was punished for drinking driving, and the defendant seems to be against the defendant's disposal of the vehicle and not to repeat the crime.

In addition, the sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as per Disposition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.