However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 21, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 700,000 to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Suwon Friwon method, and on July 10, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million to a fine for the same crime at the same court on the same day.

On September 19, 2017, around 07:58, the Defendant driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.197% in the 2km section of 306-gil, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, from around 07:0 to around 107, 306, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

As a result, the Defendant, even though he had been punished twice due to drinking, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. A mark of the measuring record of drinking;

1. Reports on traffic accidents, and related photographs;

1. Written inquiry about criminal history, etc.;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment to the same type of power);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (including circumstances favorable to the examination in the following cases);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (The subsequent consideration has been made for favorable circumstances);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act refers to the case where the defendant drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol twice due to driving of alcohol, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished twice due to drinking, and the quality of the crime is not good, the defendant's blood concentration is high, the defendant's vehicle parked, and the defendant causes minor physical damage due to the shock of the vehicle parked, which constitutes an unfavorable circumstance against the defendant. However, on the other hand, the defendant acknowledged his mistake while he led to the confession of the crime of this case, and the defendant was punished twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) before around 2009.