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 December 8, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Busan District Court’s branch branch branch.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 26, 2020, at around 09:55, the Defendant driven an E 3 vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.237% in a section of about 500 meters from a “C” parking lot located in Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City B to the same Gu D parking lot.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report of the suspect interrogation protocol by the police on the accused each, inquiry into the results of drinking driving control, and inquiry request for appraisal;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, the same electric power, and Acts and subordinate statutes attached to them;

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. According to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the various sentencing conditions as shown in the Criminal Act; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment; (c) motive and circumstance of the instant crime; (d) the means and consequence after the instant crime was committed;

The favorable sentencing condition: The crime of this case appears to be recognized and reflected, and the sentencing condition unfavorable to the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment except the criminal records in the judgment: the crime of this case has been committed again despite being sentenced to criminal punishment due to drinking driving, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is considerably high at the time.