However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

【The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on October 4, 2006. On May 29, 2007, the Incheon District Court sentenced 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution. On July 1, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court.

【Criminal facts】 On June 29, 2017, the Defendant driven B Poter truck at a section of about 300 meters from the front day of the Nam-gu Incheon Nam-dong Madern Madern Madern Madern, to the 38 Madern Madern Maddong, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.232% among the blood transfusions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Reports on the detection of drivers working at the main place and the circumstantial statements of drivers working at the main place;

1. Results of blood appraisal;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (Attachment to the judgment);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection, order to provide community service and order to attend a lecture, is that the Defendant had a record of five criminal punishments, including a criminal record, once a sentence of imprisonment due to driving under drinking, and a criminal record, twice a suspended sentence, and is subject to criminal punishment of 17 times, including a criminal record

The drinking volume discovered in the previous case before the judgment has reached a considerable degree, and the drinking volume caused by the crime of this case also constitutes the upper limit of statutory penalty as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act.

At the time of crackdown, the defendant stated to the effect that the drinking level was too high while drinking breath at the time of crackdown, but in the suspect interrogation of the police.