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

On July 30, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of one million won or more for the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch on July 30, 2008, and 2.5 million won or more for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on November 16, 201.

On May 13, 2020, at around 23:55, the Defendant driven a passenger car with a cromatic alcohol concentration of 0.199% under the influence of alcohol at the section of about 5km from the Singu Seo-gu Seo-gu Palon Palon to the front road of the same Gu B apartment house.

Accordingly, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and the control results of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate 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 the reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on orders to provide community service and attend lectures had already been punished by three times or more, the pertinent drinking driving was conducted at the same time, and considering the risk of drinking driving to many and unspecified persons and the purport of the amendment of the amended law whose statutory penalty is raised, the nature of the relevant crime is not weak.

As the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was high at the time of driving, the risk was also reasonable.

However, considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, that there is no record that the defendant has been punished for a stay of execution or more yet, and that there is no record of punishment for the defendant, and other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the record, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc