On June 18, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), from the same support on May 25, 2010 to the summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime. On July 4, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 9 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the Daegu District Court and its racing support, and on May 10, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a penalty of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Daegu District Court and its Daegu District Court and its branch on May 10, 2018 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Daegu District Court on December 19, 2018.

On July 25, 2020, at around 02:0, the Defendant driven a Cunstun car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.129% from the 4km section from the front of a mutually influent restaurant to the front of the racing-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving under the Road Traffic Act more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal notice of the result of regulating driving of drinking alcohol, the statement of the driver's circumstances, and the inquiry of the result of regulating driving of drinking;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (A), and the current status of acceptance by individual;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020) on criminal facts: (a) of the same Act and the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 202)

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The punishment corresponding to this is inevitable since a repeated crime is committed even though there are many identical criminal records having reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “reason for sentencing”), even though there are many identical criminal records having reason for sentencing.

However, the fact that the driving distance is not long is considered as a favorable sentencing factor, and the age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc. of the accused.