2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

On March 3, 2017, the Defendant, at the Daejeon District Court, issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws (drinking driving), but operated a Chive-p vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of KRW 0.141% in alcohol while under the influence of alcohol of KRW 0.141%, from around October 18, 2020 to about KRW 99km, from around 04:10 on October 18, 2020.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving regulations not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Severbling field photographs;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and a summary order of 119, 2017 High Court Decision;

1. Article 148-2(1) and Article 44-2(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020), Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the same Act, the selection of punishment for a crime

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the instant crime: (a) the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant crime was relatively higher than 0.141%; (b) the Defendant repeated the same horses to police officers at the time of enforcement; and (c) the walk was in the state of high-level drinking, such as the walk distance.

Nevertheless, the defendant has increased the risk of traffic accident by driving a motor vehicle, and actually caused a traffic accident under which many vehicles are separated from the center, and the illegality of the crime is serious.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished for drinking driving like the criminal facts in the past, and there is a high possibility of criticism.

However, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects it, and the defendant is punished as a drinking driving crime.