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 June 19, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court on the summary order, and on April 29, 2009, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a fine for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 19, 2020, at around 03:50, the Defendant driven a Doz car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.090% from the 700-meter radius to the roads in front of the Gu C Hospital located in the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Investigation report (Attachment to the summary order of the same kind of power), two copies of the summary order, and the application of 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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and order to attend lectures;

1. The sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of this case to which the sentencing criteria are applied.

2. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission, circumstances after the commission of the commission of the commission, etc.; and (b) the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case:

The defendant, even though he had a record of punishment for drunk driving, was driving under the influence of alcohol again after the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory penalty.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is 0.090% higher than the revocation standard.

A favorable condition: The defendant recognizes the crime of this case.