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 March 19, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Seoul Central District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 24, 2020, at around 00:02, the Defendant driven an Epudio car at approximately 200 meters away from the front of the Cju point in Gangnam-si B to the Dneung-si Dozel parking lot, while under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.170%.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reports on traffic accidents and on-site photographs;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.: The drunk driving requires a strict punishment as well as the offender who is highly likely to cause harm to the life and body of others; the Defendant also has the history of having been punished once before the instant case; the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was high at the time of the instant case; the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was high; and the Defendant caused a traffic accident that shocks the vehicle parked due to a drunk driving: The Defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again, against the Defendant’s crime; and the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered as having taken into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.