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

On February 21, 2013, the defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Daegu District Court due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On October 20, 2019, at around 23:25, the Defendant driven a D Alba-car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.097% at the section of about 30 meters, from the alley to the Cwon Stack-gu road.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, repeated statements by the prosecution, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on criminal investigation by the prosecution (attached to summary orders for sound driving);

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. Although there is a history of punishment for driving under the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the probation officer's strict supervision and supervision should be suspended in consideration of the situation of driving, the execution of the sentence will be suspended in consideration of the fact that it is clearly stated that there is no criminal history of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier, driving under the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment after the implementation of the Road Traffic Act, and that the degree of blood alcohol concentration exceeds the revocation standards, etc.