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

On June 25, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Suwon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on August 11, 201, a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Suwon District Court to a fine of KRW 1 million to the same crime.

Nevertheless, at around 00:57 on June 17, 2020, the Defendant driven a DNA rocketing car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.136% from the section of about 10 km from the cafeteria parking lot located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to the 157 leaf New Underground Motor Vehicle (U.S.).

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking-driving, report on the circumstances of drinking-driving drivers, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of drinking-driving drivers);

1. Detection site photographs;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports (verification of the same kind of force) and Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Discretionary Mitigation and Mitigation Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution (The following consideration shall be repeatedly made for the reason for sentencing);

1. The Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Act on the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures had been punished twice due to drunk driving as stated in its reasoning. The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration, speech and behavior level at the time of the instant crime, and the traffic risk caused by the Defendant was very high is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have an attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case, and the fact that there is no other past record of criminal punishment and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and the motive and background of the crime.