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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On April 2, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at Ansan District Court’s Ansan Branch on April 2, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 17, 2020, at around 04:15, the Defendant driven a B-to-purd vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of approximately 0.181% from the entrance to the 699 Nowon-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu to the same park parking lot.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The written statement C of the defendant's legal statement, the oral statement, the investigation report, and the notification of the results of the drinking driving control;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the same kind of power);

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. Re-offending of a crime even though the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was relatively recent, even though it had the same criminal record;

b. The Defendant appears to have driven a motor vehicle after returning home by using his/her substitute driving and seems to have driven a motor vehicle again, and seems to have a lot of motor vehicles. The Defendant is in profoundly against his/her mistake. Provided, however, the Defendant was in a state of drinking to the extent that he/she was unable to memory on the fact or circumstance of his/her driving, and the blood alcohol concentration is very high, and the risk is low. In light of the circumstances leading up to the detection, it would be highly likely that he/she continued driving if there was no witness’s proposal.