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

At around 22:20 on July 21, 2019, the Defendant driven an ENAS car from around 500 meters from the beginning of the original city to the front of the Ddong of the building in the same city, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.218% of blood alcohol level.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notify the results of drinking driving control;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 142-2 (3) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows:

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

1. In light of the fact that the statutory punishment for the drinking-driving crime has been continuously aggravated due to serious social harm caused by drinking-driving and changes in the legal sentiment of the general public, etc., the crime of drinking-driving is in need of strict punishment.

The defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol of 0.218%.

There is a history that the defendant was punished for drinking driving in the past.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant has no record of being sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor or more, and a considerable time has passed since he was punished for drinking driving.

A relatively short distance has been driven by the defendant.

Defendant reflects the instant crime.

Other circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, the environment, the motive and background of the crime, the result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.