A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

[criminal power] On March 10, 2008, the defendant received a summary order of a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Changwon District Court on March 10, 2008, and has violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 24, 2020, at around 02:30, the Defendant driven DK three automobiles with a blood alcohol content of about 0.094% under the influence of alcohol on at least two occasions from about 4km to the road at a point of 338 km located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul to the main road of the Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report on the driver and the circumstantial statement of the driver;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Written request for appraisal, and a written appraisal of blood alcohol;

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

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing summary orders;

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;

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

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years;

2. Not applying the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not yet prepared for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act;

3. The decision-making driving of the sentence is not only abrupt of himself but also a crime in which the life of an unbrush person can be taken, and the risk of such a crime is high.

The defendant is punished due to drinking driving as stated in the ruling, but he is re-driving, and his liability for such crime is not easy.

The blood alcohol concentration level is not low.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

There is no power of punishment heavier than a fine.

In addition, the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background leading to the crime, method and attitude of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc.