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

On January 6, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3.5 million from the Seoul Central District Court due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On December 14, 2019, at around 07:16, the Defendant driven a C TY-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si car at approximately 10 kilometers from the front side of the Defendant’s residence in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, to the front side of the night-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si.

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. A statement of blood collection;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the previous disposition, the results of confirmation, and 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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include the fact that the defendant had been punished twice due to drunk driving, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration level was high at the time of the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his mistake, the fact that the crime of this case constitutes the so-called "neeping driving", the fact that the defendant was punished in excess of the fine, and the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment for the last ten years, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime.