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.

[criminal history] On June 2, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of 3.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on the part of June 2, 2008. On November 26, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of 5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on the part of a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

[Criminal facts] On February 8, 2018, the Defendant driven B-low vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.113% alcohol concentration from approximately 100 meters away from the 303-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong apartment complex to the same apartment underground parking lot from the 303-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong apartment complex

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding survey report, traffic accident report, and notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of written inquiries about criminal history and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate the amount of noise (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 2, 2006);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend the lecture lies in the defendant three times before the driving of alcohol, and the driving of the drinking in this case caused a physical accident without being limited to the driving of simple drinking, and the defendant was making a driver to sit in the vehicle without being put in the Rab, even after the physical accident occurred. However, at the time of the instant case, a substitute driver was driving the apartment to the ground parking lot, and the defendant was driving a drinking-free driving at a height of about 10 meters from the apartment parking lot to the underground parking lot, and is short of the drinking distance and driving.