A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On March 12, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the same court on April 29, 2011.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving more than twice as above, on October 26, 2018, at around 21:20, the Defendant driven D Poter cargo while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.194% on the roads in front of C in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Zone B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records, inquiry reports, and five copies of judgment;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant's mistake and reflects his mistake, and that it is favorable to the defendant that it is a matter of simple crackdown on drunk driving. However, even after the year 200, the defendant, even after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor (one time of a fine, three times of suspended sentence, one time of suspended sentence of imprisonment) or a punishment, he re-driving a motor vehicle, including imprisonment with prison labor, in a total of five times (one time of a fine, three times of suspended sentence of imprisonment, one time of suspended sentence). In the past, most of the blood alcohol concentration was over 0.10%, and the instant case was also higher than 0.194%, and the fact that the defendant disposed of a motor vehicle that he would not drive under the influence of alcohol in the past trial was taken into consideration in favor of the circumstances that he would not drive under the influence of alcohol again (in this case, the defendant asserts that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant.

On the other hand, although the defendant is a crime of this case, he commits the crime of this case during the suspension of execution.