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

[Criminal Power] On August 31, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Daegu District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 10, 2020, around 04:19, the Defendant driven an E Sp-type vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.123% from the 18km section from the route near Daegu Seo-gu B to the D-ro of the same city.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, and notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous for judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal history records, inquiry reports (compact of summary orders for sound driving, and request for submission of trial proceedings);

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and order to attend lectures;

1. The sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of this case to which the sentencing criteria are applied.

2. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission, circumstances after the commission of the commission of the commission, etc.; and (b) the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case:

The defendant, even though he had a record of being punished for a drunk driving, was driving under the influence of alcohol again after the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory penalty.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is 0.123% higher than the revocation standard.

A favorable circumstances: The defendant recognizes the crime of this case, and is against himself, and the defendant does not repeat again.