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

On April 4, 2019, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,00 from the Ulsan District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On October 14, 2019, at around 23:47, the Defendant driven a F Mtz vehicle at approximately 2 km from the vicinity of Ulsan-gu C to the vicinity of the Erhz located in the same Gu, under the influence of alcohol content of 0.14%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, inquiry reports, and summary orders of the same kind of power;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (recognating the reason for discretionary mitigation) recognizes the Defendant’s mistake and reflects it, under favorable circumstances, that the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, that the Defendant has a record of punishment twice due to drunk driving, shall be considered under unfavorable circumstances, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered, taking into account all the circumstances recorded in the records, such as blood alcohol concentration and the distance of drunk driving, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.