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

On October 11, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Jung-gu District Court (Seoul Western District Court), and on April 17, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Seoul Western District Court.

On February 19, 2020: (a) around 03:21, the Defendant driven B-to-be driving on the roads located in 147, G-to-be, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, to the roads located in 11110, approximately 500 meters away from the section of about 500 meters under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.060%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, and the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Records of drinking driving under judgment: The application of criminal records, etc. and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 Road Traffic Act amended on December 24, 2018 on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (amended on December 24, 2018) strengthens the punishment to be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years but not more than five years (not less than one year but not more than two years and six months even if mitigation is made) when choosing imprisonment for a person who has driven under the influence of alcohol on not less than two occasions; the fact that the defendant had already been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol again, despite the fact that the defendant had already been under the influence of punishment on two occasions, is disadvantageous to the defendant; the defendant's mistake is recognized; the above records of driving under the influence of alcohol are relatively long; the above records of driving under the influence of alcohol do not have any other punishment than the above records of driving under the influence of alcohol; and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration of the instant case does