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

On December 16, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court, and on June 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 4 million as a fine for the same crime at the same court.

On May 23, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 08:25% of blood alcohol concentration, driven a mati cargo vehicle from the front of the “Korean Red-dong cafeteria” to the front of the community credit cooperatives, which are located in Seopopo City, Seopo City, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, in the influence of alcohol level 0.124%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement under the circumstances of the driver;

1. Report on the state of driving under the influence of alcohol, inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous for judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (a summary order attached to the same type of power);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been sentenced to a fine twice due to the crime of drunk driving prior to the instant crime, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime is high, the Defendant should be punished strictly in light of the fact that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant crime.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine prior to the crime. The sentencing example in similar cases, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and the crime are followed by the fact that the defendant led to his mistake. The defendant did not drive immediately after drinking, but was found to have been driven under the condition that the drinking was less than the drinking at night.