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

On August 17, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court, etc. On November 30, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daejeon District Court on November 30, 2007, and on November 6, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Youngju District Court’s Youngju Branch.

On June 9, 2020, the Defendant driven a ice 2km vehicle from around 2km to the day before Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon to the day before a restaurant located in C, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.132% of blood alcohol concentration on June 21, 2020.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation reports on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver) and enforcement photographs of control reports on the results of drinking driving control;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports (applicable to the suspect's previous records and 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. 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 crime of this case, at the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was relatively higher than 0.132%, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was inaccurate and walked at the time of enforcement, and the Defendant was in a high level of drinking alcohol, such as in-depth distance.

Nevertheless, since the defendant has greatly increased the risk of traffic accident by driving a motor vehicle, the illegality of the crime is serious.

In particular, since the defendant had been punished for a four-time drinking driving in the past, even though he had a history of punishment for a four-time drinking driving, he is highly likely to be subject to criticism.

However, the defendant seems to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.