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.

On May 9, 2011, the Defendant issued a summary order of 1.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Daegu District Court, and on December 7, 201, the Defendant violated the duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol on at least two occasions upon receiving a summary order of 2.5 million won for the same crime from the Western Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court.

On April 7, 2017, around 03:35, the Defendant driven a Austria car in the state of alcohol concentration of about 800 meters from the front side of the “Pishbro cafeteria cafeteria” in Daegu-gu, Daegu-ro to the front side of the 3-lane 12 of the same Dong-ro.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The circumstantial statement report of the driver involved in driving, response to a request for appraisal, and inquiry about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol (blood collection results);

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

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (or choice of imprisonment);

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the number of times and time when the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, the concentration of alcohol in blood at the time of driving the drinking of this case, the defendant's age, sex, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various reasons for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.