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

On August 10, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million from the Ulsan District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On July 18, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On February 16, 2019, at around 23:40, the Defendant driven a DSS6 vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a 0.073% alcohol concentration 0.073% from the 20km section of approximately 20km to the front road, which is located in the Hanyang-gun, Seoyang-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do Alternative Plan for Ulsan-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking driving, and report on the state of drinking drivers;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

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

1. The rationale for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is to recognize and reflect the facts charged, the blood alcohol concentration is not relatively high, and the fact that there is no previous conviction exceeding a fine is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, there are two criminal records for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the gap between the criminal records and the principal crime is less than the time gap is disadvantageous to the defendant.

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