However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 3, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Incheon District Court due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and a summary order of KRW 5 million by the same court on November 30, 2007 due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving).

Although the Defendant had been able to drive alcohol twice or more as above, on May 8, 2016, the Defendant driven Cenz E220 % alcohol while under the influence of 0.164% in alcohol during blood transfusion on May 8, 2016, and proceeded with approximately 200 meters from the restaurant parking lot located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul, from the restaurant parking lot to the apartment parking lot located in the Yong-Namnam city located in the same 240-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. Previous conviction: References to inquiries, reports on investigation (the same criminal record as the suspect), and copies of the summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the fact that his/her mistake is repented, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Order to Attend the Course are as follows: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol despite a large number of criminal records having violated the Road Traffic Act, including three times of the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (c) but, although the Defendant did not receive the construction cost, he was urged by the unpaid father during the lawsuit, to receive wages again; (d) the Defendant got paid from the unpaid father; (e) the Defendant got a person to drive after drinking alcohol; (e) the driving distance was relatively short; (e) the driving distance was discomponed; (e) the Defendant did not repeat the Defendant’s age, sexual intercourse; and (e) the Defendant did not commit the instant crime by selling the vehicle in possession.