A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On September 29, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2 million by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on September 29, 2006; the summary order of KRW 2 million by a fine for the same crime at the same court on November 2, 201; the summary order of KRW 7 million by the same court on July 23, 2014; the summary order of KRW 7 million by the same crime at the same court on July 23, 2014; and the same court on December 8, 2016 at the same court on the same offense.

Nevertheless, at around 17:52 on July 24, 2020, the Defendant driven 2 km C 2 km from the factory in the southyang-si located in the Namyang-si of 0.152% of the blood alcohol concentration, while under the influence of alcohol on July 24, 2020.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the report on circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and the control results of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions as stated in the judgment: Criminal history records, briefings (A), investigation reports (verification of the records of punishment for sound driving), -court rulings of 2016 senior district court 2016 senior high-class 4673, summary orders of 2014 senior high-class 106888 of the Geumwon District Court - Summary orders of 201 senior high-class 19131 of the Geumwon District Court - Summary orders of 2006 senior high-class 28068 of the

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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime in 2016, even though he was sentenced four times or more including the suspended sentence, or without being aware of it. In light of the risk that drunk driving may affect many and unspecified persons and the purport of the amendment of the amended law, the nature of the crime is not weak.

또한 피고인은 음주운전을 하던 중 시동을 켠채 차에서 잠이 든 점에 비추어 위험성이 높았고, 범행 직후 음주운전 사실을 부인하는 등 비난의 가능성도 높다.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case.