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 becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On August 30, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million by the Daejeon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 27, 2020, at around 21:50, the Defendant driven an EM5 vehicle in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.089% at the section of approximately 150 meters from the roads in front of the Daejeon Seo-gu C cafeteria B to the roads in front of the same Gu D.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Details of the police interrogation protocol of the accused, notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the circumstantial statement of the drinking driver, inquiry report on the records of the crackdown on drinking driving, and investigation report on the circumstances of drinking driving (report on the circumstances of the drinking driver);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of the results of inquiry (A), investigation reports (related previous records and confirmations), and the summary order for drinking-driving under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in two copies;

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. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires the punishment corresponding to the crimes that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others.

Although the Defendant had been punished twice due to drinking driving, the Defendant committed the instant crime and has a high possibility of criticism.

The blood alcohol level at the time of the instant crime is not low, and the distance of the Defendant’s driving is not shorter than the distance, and the quality of such crime and the circumstances of the crime are not easy.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize the crime of this case and to reflect his mistake.

The crime of this case did not cause personal injury.

On the other hand, the defendant is the defendant.