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

On August 1, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on February 20, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months by imprisonment with labor for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

around 05:43 on March 30, 2017, the Defendant driven a BM6 car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.098% alcohol concentration from the 1km section from around 1km to the 11st road of the same time, as the trade non-cafeteria cafeteria road located in Osan-si, Osan-si, Osan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of driving at home;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation reports (verification of history related to driving), written judgments, and copies of summary orders, shall be applied;

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. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (including circumstances favorable to the examination in the following cases);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (The subsequent consideration has been made for favorable circumstances);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, family relation, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

[The favorable circumstances] The Defendant acknowledged his mistake while making a confession of the instant crime; the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was not high; and the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment for the same traffic crime after 2013.

It is true that the crime of this case was committed in spite of the fact that the defendant had been punished more than twice for the same kind of crime.