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

The Defendant, at the Ulsan District Court on June 2, 2009, received a summary order of a fine of one million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on September 4, 2014, at the same court, received a summary order of a fine of five million won for the same crime, and violated the obligation under the Road Traffic Act that shall not be driven by a vehicle under the influence of alcohol at least twice.

On April 3, 2019, at around 00:28, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle for Erenrenas under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.13% in the section of approximately 3 km from the roads near Ulsan-gu B apartment to the “D Hospital” in the same Gu C from the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records and application of each summary order;

1. Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The fact that probation and community service order recognize the facts charged for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that blood alcohol concentration is high, and that there are two same criminal records and two same criminal records are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Other factors of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, environment, motive of crime, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.