A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On February 19, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court, and on January 6, 2015, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the same court, and on July 28, 2015, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 7 million for the same crime at the same court. On April 28, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 8 months for the same crime, etc. at the same court.

On September 23, 2019, at around 21:15, the Defendant driven a rocketing car with the blood alcohol concentration of about 0.070% in the section of about 2km from the Jeju-si B apartment road to the coast intersection in the same city-type Dong.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of detection of violations of the Road Traffic Act;

1. The circumstantial statement, investigation report, and report on detection of the drinking driver;

1. Records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports (Attachment to the same type of power, etc.);

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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant, who has the record of driving under the influence of alcohol, re-driving under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the crime is not exceptionally applied.

The possibility of criticism is not significant in that the Defendant, who had been found to have been punished on six occasions due to drinking driving, etc. (including two times before and after the suspension of the execution of the sentence) and was engaged in driving under the influence of alcohol in this case without being aware of it.

In addition, the defendant argued that the driver was to drive the instant case under the circumstance that the night-take due to drinking alcohol was less cured from the day immediately preceding the day to the day of the instant case. Even if so, the defendant's records of driving under the influence of alcohol and drinking under the instant case.