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 October 4, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the Busan District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, on October 22, 2012, a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Busan District Court’s Branch Branch Branch, and on August 8, 2013, a summary order of KRW 6 million for a fine of KRW 8 million was issued at the Ulsan District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 22:00 on January 16, 2020, the Defendant driven an Eststren vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.146% in the section of approximately 0.1km from the front of the C cafeteria located in Yangsan City B to the front of the D apartment in the same city.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry inquiry reports and application of statutes in Part IV of the summary order;

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. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. Despite the past record of punishment three times for drunk driving prior to the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol; the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level at the time is high and thus, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak; and the police officer under the influence of drinking control is urgently avoided.

Traffic accidents are the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, it seems that no personal damage has occurred due to the traffic accident of this case, and the defendant has recognized the crime and has violated the depth.