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

The Defendant, at the Cheongju District Court on November 14, 2008, issued a summary order of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and on October 18, 201, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 2 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), respectively, on October 3, 201, and around October 3, 201, the Defendant driven a low-speed vehicle under the influence of KRW 0.170% under the influence of alcohol in the blood. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27817, Oct. 3, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27424, Oct. 3, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27448, Feb. 2, 2013>

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A traffic accident report and a statement on the circumstances of the driver involved in the driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: (A) a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and the application of statutes reporting the results of investigation;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The elements of sentencing unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The fact that there was a history of having been sentenced to a fine on several occasions due to drinking driving. The so-called favorable sentencing factors: there was no particular criminal record that the person was sentenced to the said fine. Recognizing the mistake and reflectiveness. Do and other factors of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the sentence should be determined as per the disposition,