A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that 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

On January 28, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Seogu District Court's branch branch on January 28, 2008. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant was under trial at the Seogu District Court's Seo branch (2017 High Court Decision 897) due to drinking (0.269% of blood alcohol concentration).

Although the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, on March 25, 2018, the Defendant driven a DNA car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.099% without a car driver’s license from around 700 meters in the 700m section from the front of the road in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, Seogu, Seogu, Seoul-gun, to the front of the 13th three-distance street.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to photographs at control site), investigation report (report on the situation of the driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (attached to the same type of judgment and indictment), detection of suspects in violation of the Road Traffic Act and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting a crime, and subparagraphs 1, and 43 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the Defendant was punished several times for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and even if the period of the previous crime of drunk driving was not elapsed, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant, taking into account the fact that the Defendant repeated the pertinent drunk driving and the driverless driving, and the risk of drunk driving.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and did not repeat the vehicle, and scrapped the vehicle of this case, and there is no criminal conviction exceeding the fine, and there is an economic situation.