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.

On April 5, 2017, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the Gwangju District Court's net support on April 5, 2017.

[200 Highest 2586] On October 4, 2020, the Defendant driven a F QM5 car under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.135% in a section of about 1km from around C cafeteria to E in front of C cafeteria, where it is impossible to find out the specific address of B (hereinafter referred to as “C cafeteria”) at around 22:32,00,000, the Defendant driven a F QM5 car under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.135%.

[200 Highest 2623] On October 14, 2020, the Defendant driven a F QM5-car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.041% in approximately 1.5km from the Do in front of “H” alcohol house located in G at Yacheon-si to the roads in front of J located in G at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

[200 Highest 2586]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding report on drivers of drinking alcohol, and inquiry of the results of crackdown on drinking alcohol [20 order 2623];

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. He/she shall make a statement on the circumstances of a driver driving, and inquire about the results of regulating drinking;

1. Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and summary order-making statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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 defendant with reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act committed an act of driving under the influence of alcohol again even though he/she had a history of criminal punishment due to drinking, and the risk of such act is very large.

However, the defendant seems to have a profound attitude against his mistake, and again does not drive drinking again.

In addition to the previous record of the judgment, it is reasonable to take into account the fact that the vehicle held by it is disposed of, and there is no other force of punishment for drinking driving, health condition and economic situation into consideration in favorable circumstances, and otherwise the age, sex, and behavior of the defendant.