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

[criminal power] On September 21, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Gwangju District Court’s net support on September 21, 201, and a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime in the same court on December 13, 2016.

On August 19, 2020, the Defendant driven a FTB car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.166% at the section of about 2 km from the front road where it is impossible to identify the specific address below B at the 18:33 p.m., and from the front road of E located in D at the same time.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of the driver and report on the circumstances of the driver’s license;

1. Criminal records as indicated in the judgment: Application of the inquiry report on criminal records, etc. and two copies of the summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for probation, community service order and order to attend a lecture are recognized, and the circumstances that the defendant does not repeat the crime of this case are recognized.

However, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is higher than 0.166%, and the defendant's responsibility is less than that of the defendant in the same crime, even though he had the record of being punished twice or more for the same crime, as well as receiving a summary order of KRW 5 million for the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2016.

However, the fact that the defendant appears to have used proxy driving first on the day of the instant case shall be considered as a favorable sentencing factor.

In addition, the social harm caused by drinking driving is very serious and thus it is necessary to strictly punish it, and the blood alcohol concentration of this case.