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

On June 18, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court, and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the same court around March 15, 2010.

On April 21, 2020, at around 22:07, the Defendant driven a DNA cargo vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.07% from the 8km section in the middle-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S. to the air condition of the coolant distance in front of the street of the “C” located in the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do.

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. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Inquiries, reports on the failure of dispositions, the results of confirmation, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of one summary order; and

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. Probation, community service order and order to attend the course of the punishment under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act are to be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the accused has led to the instant crime and has been repented; (b) the accused has a record of drinking driving twice; and (c) the accused has a record of blood alcohol concentration and alcohol level; (d) the distance and age of drinking alcohol driving; (e) the age; (e) character and conduct; (e) the motive, means and consequence of the offense;