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

[criminal power] On March 26, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court, and KRW 1.5 million as a fine in the same court on January 23, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 11, 2020, at around 02:51, the Defendant driven a e-mail in the direction of approximately 2 km alcohol concentration of approximately 0.126% from the 2km road of Daegu Suwon-gu to the front road of D in Daegu Suwon-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, and notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, confirmation of criminal records, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of two copies of summary orders;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and order to attend lectures;

1. The sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of this case to which the sentencing criteria are applied.

2. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission, circumstances after the commission of the commission of the commission, etc.; and (b) the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case:

The defendant, even though he had the record of punishment for drunk driving, was driving under the influence of alcohol again after the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory penalty.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is 0.126% higher than the revocation standard.

The defendant has caused a traffic accident resulting from street lights while driving under influence.