2. Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

On October 31, 2013, the Defendant got a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch on October 31, 2013, but was under the influence of alcohol by 0.187% for the distance of approximately 20 meters from the roads near Seo-gu, Daejeon to E near the roads in D, around October 4, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report (specific blood alcohol concentration);

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (the same records as re-offending of sound driving and the same kind of criminal records), and summary orders;

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 reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the crime of this case lies in 0.187% of blood alcohol content at the time of the crime of this case, and the risk of traffic accident has increased by driving a vehicle even though it was a high level of drinking, such as deep distance and rhythm at the time of crackdown, and the risk of traffic accident has been actually increased by driving the vehicle. The illegality of the crime of this case is serious.

In addition, the defendant had been punished three times due to drinking driving in the past, but again committed the crime of this case, so there is a high possibility of criticism.

In addition, the Defendant was engaged in taxi driving at the time of committing the crime, and thus, the Defendant, as a driver, has a duty to thoroughly observe his duty of care and prevent the occurrence of the accident, was driving a motor vehicle under the state of taking the responsibility to prevent the occurrence of the accident.

Considering the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects them, the above circumstances will be considered.