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 January 24, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Daegu District Court's Ansan Branch on January 24, 2008.

【Criminal Facts】

On November 26, 2019, at around 19:40, the Defendant driven an ECo-car in the state of alcohol with approximately 00 meters alcohol concentration of 0.128% from the 200-meter section to the D Center’s front road located in Ansan-si B apartment parking lot from Ansan-si to C.

As a result, the Defendant violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Criminal place, report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstances of drinking drivers, investigation report (report on the circumstances of drinking drivers), report on the actual situation, and report on the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and investigation reports (the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the suspect's previous records of drunk driving);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty, choice of imprisonment; 1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act that reduce discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for orders to attend lectures and orders to provide community service;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one year to two years; and

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: Offenses not set; and

3. The crime of this case, which was sentenced to sentence, was committed once again by the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished three times due to the crime of drunk driving, and the nature of the crime is not good, and that the defendant had caused a traffic accident at the time of this case, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected, and that the defendant has no record of punishment beyond the fine is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's occupation, age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, and circumstances after the crime are considered.