A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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 February 27, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court on February 27, 2009, and on November 16, 2016, to a suspended sentence of two years for the same crime in the same court on June or more occasions.

【Criminal Facts】 On March 8, 2020, at around 04:46, the Defendant driven C rocketing car at the section of about 1.4 km from the front of a screen golf course located in Sungnam-si B, Sungnam-si, to the front of the west west-si, the front of which is under the influence of alcohol level of 0.086%.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The report on the status of rats and harmful driving, the report on the results of the control of drunk driving, the report on the circumstantial statement of the drinking driver, and the field photograph;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (former records), and application of two copies of 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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing in the market);

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won or more in February 2009; (b) the imprisonment of two years or more in June 201 to June 2016; and (c) the Defendant did not drive the instant drinking again without being among those who had been punished for a total of six drinking hours from around 2001 to around December 2016; (c) the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of driving without a license; and (d) the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of stopping a vehicle on the second line along the intersection, which could have caused danger to traffic flow, according to the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant did not have a criminal record; and (e) the Defendant did not repeat the said sentence against his own criminal act.