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

On March 13, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on March 13, 2008, and issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime in the same court on August 17, 2009.

At around 12:30 on July 7, 2020, the Defendant driven Cpoter vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.161% from the 1km section from the front side of a restaurant under the Government-dong, Ma-dong, Ma-si, Ma-si to the front side of the same city B.

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. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (report attaching criminal records of the same kind as a suspect A);

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

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

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he had a previous conviction in several times; (b) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was considerably high; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment; (b) motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the conditions of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as