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

On November 7, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) with a view to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on December 12, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4,00,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) with a view to a high-level district court’s high-level support.

On August 15, 2017, around 02:25, the Defendant driven a B rocketing car with a alcohol content of 0.295% in the blood alcohol content from the front of the mutual influence point in the new details of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the road of approximately 76-25, Changcheon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A response to a request for appraisal, or a report on the detection of the principal driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (twotime drinking records);

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures is that the defendant drives a long distance without any particular warning even though he was punished twice due to drinking, and the previous conviction in the judgment is not more than three years. The defendant was punished for driving without license in 2015, and the amount of alcohol concentration in blood due to respiratory measurement was 0.253%. As a result of the result of the blood collection test, the blood collection test showed that the defendant driven a long distance when the defendant far exceeded the standard of the general drinking condition.

However, the defendant is against the crime of this case, and the defendant does not repeat the crime of this case by selling the vehicle after the crime of this case.

The defendant seems to have used his proxy driving prior to the crime of this case, and the defendant is punished more than a fine due to traffic-related crimes.