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

On June 13, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seogu District Court’s Seo branch branch on June 13, 2016. On April 18, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) with the blood alcohol concentration of KRW 0.105% on October 21, 2017 by the same court.

On April 18, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same court for fraud, and the judgment was finalized on April 26, 2019.

Even though the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving regulations two times or more, on March 22, 2019, the Defendant driven a Dinti Vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately KRW 500 meters from the front of the public parking lot B in Daegu Seo-gu, Daegu to the front day of the Daegu Seo-gu, Seogu, Seoul, to the front day of the public parking lot B in 00 meters of alcohol level 0.133% of alcohol level.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the status of the driver;

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

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Two copies of the management and inquiry reports of the main entry into force, two copies of the criminal records, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written judgment (the sequence 24,26 of the evidence list);

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; and enforced June 25, 2019); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the repeated driving of the instant drinking and the high drinking level of drinking alcohol, even though the defendant had a previous record of driving under the judgment of the court below.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and did not repeat the crime, and the crime of this case is the latter concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the danger of drinking driving and the necessity of strengthening punishment therefor, driving distance, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and prosecutors.