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

[criminal power] On June 27, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Suwon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On April 30, 2014, a summary order of KRW 5 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Suwon District Court, and on July 11, 2018, the Daejeon District Court issued a summary order of KRW 7 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daejeon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On September 6, 2019, the Defendant, despite the power of violating the provision on the prohibition of drunk driving, driven a Franchising car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 40 meters alcohol content 0.218% while under the influence of alcohol in the vicinity of the “C” adjacent to the “E” road located in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is located in D.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: An inquiry into crimes, a statement of results of the inquiry into crimes, a report on the results of confirmation of the previous dispositions, and a copy of the summary order;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures lies in the records that the defendant was punished for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2001, 2008, 2014, and 2018. From June 25, 2019, the penal provision for drinking driving was strengthened and the defendant was also able to easily understand the above circumstances through the media, etc., and the defendant was running under the instant drinking even if he was able to easily understand the above circumstances, and the degree of risk is high as the blood alcohol concentration is high at the time of driving, and the defendant repeatedly drives under the same conditions, and the defendant is suspected to have been sprinked for compliance consciousness.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case.