A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On November 30, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On June 16, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million by the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

At around 19:10 on March 7, 2019, the Defendant driven an Epoter cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.061% from a 500-meter section from the front of the C Park in Yangsan-si B to the front of Yangsan-si D, Yangsan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, summary orders, and application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. The fact that an order to attend a course of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at least twice the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, despite the fact that the driving of the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not good, and in light of the frequency, contents, time, etc. of the same criminal records, etc., the criminal liability seems to be disadvantageous to the defendant, or the defendant's attitude to recognize and reflect his/her criminal act, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level at the time is not so high, and the risk of traffic accident due to drinking driving is not high.