A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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 September 4, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for the commission of a violation of the Road Traffic Act in Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong site, and on January 9, 2012, issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for the same crime from the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon Branch Branch, and on March 5, 2012, issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime from the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon Branch Branch Branch, and on April 15, 2014, issued a summary order of KRW 7,00,000 as a fine for the same crime.

On December 6, 2019, at around 00:49, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by driving a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by 0.049% at approximately 50 meters from the front of a cafeteria located in the two-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu to the front of B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (related to the same kind of suspect's power), related summary orders, and application of one copy of judgment, respectively;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years;

2. Not applying the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not yet prepared for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act;

3. The decision-making driving of the sentence is not only abrupt of himself but also a crime in which the life of an unbrush person can be taken, and the risk of such a crime is high.

The Defendant, like the records in the judgment, is punished by drinking driving on a multiple occasions, but the Defendant again runs a drinking-water and has a heavy responsibility for such crime.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.