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

On January 15, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,00 to a fine for violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on January 15, 2009.

On July 18, 2020, at around 21:32, the Defendant driven a DNA car with approximately 200 meters water from the underground parking lot of the building B to the front road of the building C in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant was under influence of alcohol concentration of 0.067%.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached to criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (A), pre-disposition records, reports on results of confirmation, and copies of 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant again commits the instant crime even though he/she had the same criminal record, and the same criminal record has been relatively old, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the following factors: the degree of blood alcohol and alcohol of the defendant, the age, character and conduct and environment of the defendant, the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.