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

On November 27, 2018, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Hongsung branch of the Daejeon District Court on November 27, 2018.

On September 23:05, 2019, the Defendant driven a B halogic car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 2 km alcohol concentration of about 0.084% from the section of approximately 2km from the front of a restaurant in the mutual unsular area in the south-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the third intersection in the transmission of the same side.

Accordingly, the defendant was a person who violated at least once a drunk driving and was under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement and investigation report of a host driver and his/her investigation report;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reply to criminal records, etc., investigation reports (report on attachment of criminal records of the suspect's same kind of power);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances among the grounds for the relevant punishment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures is a very dangerous crime that may cause unexpected behaviors not only one's own life but also another's life and family by raising the possibility of traffic accidents, and thus, to prevent this, the defendant is bound to bear strict responsibility for the act related thereto. The defendant also causes the crime of this case when he was punished by a fine due to drinking driving as stated in the judgment, even though his license has been revoked, and the crime of this case has been committed by drinking driving. Meanwhile, the defendant led to the confession and rebuttal of the crime of this case and the defendant except the above fine