A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 from the Daegu District Court Port Branch on December 1, 2008, with a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) on September 15, 2010, a summary order of KRW 3 million due to the same crime on September 15, 2010, and a summary order of KRW 5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) on January 2, 2013.

On July 15, 2019, at around 13:45, the Defendant driven an Eststren vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.067% of blood alcohol level from approximately 100 meters to the front road of Dives Party C located in Nam-gu, Daegu-gu B’s residence.

As a result, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition of driving at least twice.

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: Criminal records, replys to criminal records, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to prosecution investigation reports (verification of suspect's same kind of power);

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. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act include four times the criminal history of the punishment for drunk driving, but the fact that the defendant has been able to eradicate the harmful effects of drunk driving, and that the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment, re-influences the risk of recidivism after the implementation of the Road Traffic Act, requires strict warning as the responsibility for the crime is unlikely to be less and more severe: Provided, That the execution of the punishment is suspended by taking into account the fact that there is no criminal history of imprisonment without prison labor or more, the blood alcohol concentration level falls short of the criteria for revocation of license, the defendant's age and occupation, etc., and the probation is imposed for the reason that the strict management and supervision of the probation officer will be helpful for the prevention of recidivism.