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

[criminal power] On November 6, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on December 26, 2008, a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime at the same court on December 26, 2008, and a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime at the same court on March 26, 2013, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 19:50 on June 13, 2020, the Defendant driven a FTball vehicle in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 400 meters from the front line of convenience C in Gyeonggi-si B to the E-type parking lot located in D.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's protocol of interrogation of each police officer three times as to the defendant's statement in court;

1. Report on the state of driving under the influence of alcohol, report on the control of drinking driving, and report on the state of drinking drivers;

1. Statement of the results of the drinking driving control;

1. Details of the use of local currency on the 112 reported case processing table, and receipt of G convenience points; and

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports (A), previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing summary orders;

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 Defendant committed the instant crime on the grounds of sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though he had the record of being punished for driving under influence of alcohol in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2013.

The last record of drinking driving is relatively recent, and the blood alcohol concentration of this case is very high.

In addition, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the health of the defendant is not good, the distance of drunk driving (400m), the background of crackdown, the age and character of the defendant, his age and personality, family relationship, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.