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

On July 1, 2010 and April 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of 2.5 million won and 4.5 million won, respectively, to the name of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act by the District Court of Jung-gu on April 12, 2013.

On April 2, 2016, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition provisions on drunk driving twice or more, driven a B Poter 2 while under the influence of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.083% at the section of about 30km from a place where it is impossible to know about the flow route of the Soyang-gu Gyeonggi-si in the Goyangyang-si on Apr. 10:39, 2016, in violation of this provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and investigation reports (previous and confirmation) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the order to provide community service and attend lectures is a convenient means of transportation. However, since it is a dangerous article that can be inferred by a dangerous weapon, a person who operates an automobile is obliged to obtain a license and operate an automobile with due care in normal conditions.

In particular, drinking driving may lead to large accidents by driving under a state where the ability to exercise due diligence and physical exercise has been significantly deteriorated, and it is highly dangerous as it may cause serious harm to unspecified persons.

In light of the fact that the defendant had already been punished twice due to drinking driving of this case, it is necessary to make a strict punishment.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine due to the same crime, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are shown.