except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

[criminal history] On May 15, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's net support on May 15, 2009. On June 26, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the same court on June 26, 2009. On July 10, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving).

[2] On October 30, 2020, the Defendant driven a DNA sports cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.088% from around 1km to around the roads of the same Siridong Agricultural Technology Center from around 22:00 to around 22:00 to around the roads of the Siridong Agricultural Technology Center.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, text of judgment, and copy of summary order, such as criminal history;

1. Article 148-2(1) and Article 44-2(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 17371, Jun. 9, 2020); the selection of imprisonment for a crime

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Operation of Motor Vehicles without Permission and the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents”), including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment in 2009 under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Sentence 55(1)3 of the said Act, has a history of criminal punishment on several occasions for the same crime. In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a relatively recent

However, the defendant was driving again in a drinking state.

In light of this point, the defendant's choice of imprisonment is inevitable, notwithstanding the employment rules and personnel regulations of the defendant.

However, on the other hand, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was relatively high at the time of the instant case, and about seven years have passed since the defendant was finally subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime.

(b) other.