A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten 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

On November 17, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch of the Daegu District Court on November 17, 2006, and a summary order of KRW 5 million on July 9, 2010, by the same court, due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

Nevertheless, at around 00:30 on January 26, 2020, the Defendant driven a DNA car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.162% from a section of approximately 500 meters in front of the Gu, the Gu, U.S. B apartment in front of the Gu, Si, 2020 to the road front of the Gu, the Gu, Si, Do.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act prohibition regulations at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement E of the defendant in court;

1. A report on the situation of driving under the influence of alcohol (six pages of evidence records), and a photograph related to drinking;

1. Statement on the circumstances of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of second-class Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, reply reports, and 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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant, who has a record of drinking driving, drives a motor vehicle again, and the crime of this case is not less than that of the crime, but the amount of blood alcohol concentration due to drinking of this case is higher.

In addition, the possibility of criticism is significant in that the Defendant had been engaged in drinking driving of this case without being aware of the history of punishment being found four times or more due to drinking driving.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, the records of drinking driving of the defendant have passed for more than nine years from the date of the crime of this case, and the defendant is still punished for more than a suspended sentence.