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

[criminal power] On May 28, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 by the Gwangju District Court to a fine of KRW 500,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on January 11, 2010, a summary order of KRW 4 million was issued by the Gwangju District Court for the same crime, etc.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 9, 2019, around 02:55, the Defendant driven a DNA car in the state of alcohol of approximately 1km alcohol concentration of about 0.118% from the 1km section to the roads of “C” located in the same city located in the Southern-si, Yangsan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and copies of each summary order issued under statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. The fact that the driving of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not good despite the history of punishment twice the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is high at the time, and thus the possibility of criticism is not small in light of the frequency, contents, time, etc. of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc., can be seen as unfavorable to the defendant, or the defendant's attitude to recognize and reflect his criminal act.