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 July 28, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch on July 28, 2015, and on August 13, 2020, at the Suwon District Court filed a summary order for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On August 29, 2020, at around 02:20, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle kid in Grand City B with 0.059% of alcohol concentration in the 7km section from the front of the C Industrial Complex in Masung City D to the above C Industrial Complex again, after going through the road in the front of the C Industrial Complex in Masung City D.

Summary of Evidence

1. A written statement of the defendant in court;

1. Report on the occurrence of the case, and report on the internal investigation;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (a summary order and indictment attached thereto) and statutes;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime of this case is that the defendant, who has a record of drinking driving, drives a motor vehicle again, and the nature of the crime is not that of the crime;

The Defendant had had a record of being punished for a fine because he was discovered through drinking driving twice, and even though he was discovered through drinking driving around July 2020 and requested for a summary order after he was found to have been found to have been guilty of the instant crime, there is a lot of possibility of criticism in that he again committed the instant crime.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration due to the drinking of this case is not high, the defendant's 2006 period from the date of the crime of this case has passed for more than 14 years from the date of the crime of this case, and the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, means and result.