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

On January 5, 2015, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Western Branch of the Daegu District Court.

On July 4, 2019, at around 03:19, the Defendant driven an E-Korean cruise car with approximately 700 meters alcohol concentration 0.135% under the influence of alcohol level on the front side of the “D” restaurant located in Daegu Water-gu C from the Do in front of the Daegu Water-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, references to prosecution investigation reports (verification of suspect's records of drinking driving), and the application of 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. Although there is a history of punishment for drinking driving for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, in full view of the fact that the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment, has been enforced after the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act, and the degree of blood alcohol concentration exceeds the revocation of license, it is likely that the crime is serious and the risk of re-offending is likely to be serious, and that the punishment requires severe warning. However, the execution of the punishment is suspended by taking into account the fact that there is no imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, the fact that there is no past record of punishment, the fact that there is no family and relatives, the fact that the family and relatives appeal the preference of the defendant, and the defendant's age and family relationship, but it seems that the strict management and supervision of the prior probation officer will be helpful for the prevention of recidivism. It is decided as per the disposition above.