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

On November 13, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of KRW 5 million from the Daegu District Court on July 29, 2016, and a summary order of KRW 5 million from the fine of KRW 5 million on July 29, 2016.

On September 1, 2019, at around 02:03, the Defendant driven a BP car in the shape of alcohol level of about 0.103% alcohol level at the 2km section from the center of the Do government office located in 614-9 as the center of the Do government office located in 614-9, Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu Northern-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, references to prosecution investigation reports (verification of suspect's drinking driving records) and the application of statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

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

1. Although Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation has three times the history of punishment for drunk driving for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2, in full view of the fact that the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment, has been enforced since the enforcement of the Road Traffic Act, and that the degree of blood alcohol concentration exceeds the revocation standards, and that the crackdown is small that it is difficult to drive due to the maximum time to prevent recidivism, it is important for the crime to take into account the responsibility of the crime and the risk of recidivism. However, it seems that the execution of the punishment is postponed by taking into account the fact that there was no history of punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier, that there was no criminal history, that there was no age and occupation of the defendant, and that the probation officer's supervision and supervision of the probation officer is required to prevent recidivism.