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

On October 15, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at an Ansan District Court's Ansan Branch, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on June 15, 2010) at an Goyang Branch of the District Court's Goyang Branch on March 15, 2008.

On March 7, 2019, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol of 0.086% of blood alcohol concentration on March 7, 2019, while driving DK5 cars from the front of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul to the front of Seoul Mapo-gu.

As a result, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Photographs at the time of crackdown;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., circumstances favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (recognition of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a lecture [unfavorable circumstances] despite the fact that the defendant was subject to criminal punishment three times due to drinking driving in the past, there is a high possibility of criticism for the crime of this case.

[Liuried circumstances] The defendant recognized the crime of this case and repented his mistake in depth.

At the time of the instant crime, the blood alcohol concentration was relatively high, and there was no other additional damage.

It is clear that the social relationship between the defendant and his relatives is clear, such as the defendant's birth of his wife against the defendant.

The defendant shall be the same as that of the defendant.