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 October 8, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court as well as a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court on October 15, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 17, 2020, at around 00:25, the Defendant driven a DNA car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.185% from the 1km section to the water viewing road located in the Dong-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si B, to the water source transfer road located in the same time-gu.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the report on circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and the control results of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports (a summary order attached to the same type of power);

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 the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of sentencing orders and orders to attend a community service and orders to attend a lecture had been punished twice or more, the pertinent drinking driving was conducted at the same time, and considering the risk of drinking driving to many and unspecified persons and the purport of the amendment of the amended law whose statutory penalty is raised, the nature of the relevant crime is not weak.

In addition, as the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving is also high, the risk was also reasonable.

However, considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, that there is no record that the defendant has been punished for a stay of execution or more yet, and that there is no record of punishment for the defendant, and other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the record, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc