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 January 18, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Daejeon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 8, 2020, at around 00:46, the Defendant driven a d SM7 car in a drunken state with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.177% from around the drinking house in which it is impossible to identify the trade name in the Jinyeong-dong in the Gumi-si, Sinsi to the front of the C factory in the Gumi-si, Sinsi.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under the influence of alcohol, report on the results of crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol, inquiry into the results of crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol, and investigation report on the vehicle whistle (D);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry reports, investigation reports, application of summary order-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires the punishment corresponding to the crimes that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others.

Although the Defendant was punished several times due to drinking driving and driving without a license or was subject to juvenile protective disposition, the Defendant committed the instant crime and has a high possibility of criticism.

At the time of the instant crime, the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was high, and the distance of the Defendant’s driving is not shorter than the distance, and the quality of the crime and the criminal administration are not easy.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize the crime of this case and to reflect his mistake.

In addition, there was no personal injury due to the instant crime.

On the other hand.