A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 January 9, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court, and a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on October 12, 2015, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 23:40 on May 6, 2019, the Defendant driven a Fpoter cargo vehicle from around the roads near Ulsan-gu C Hospital located in Ulsan-gu B to the E-road located in the same Gu, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.107% of alcohol level.

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 convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, US records and reports on the results of confirmation, and copies of each summary order applicable;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though there was a history of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol twice the reason for sentencing, it is not good that the motor vehicle was driven under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime are good. In light of the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level high, the defendant's degree of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the frequency, contents, time, etc., the crime liability is not less weak, and the possibility of criticism is not small, etc., the defendant seems to have an attitude unfavorable to the defendant, or the defendant's attitude of recognizing and opposing his criminal act.