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

On February 9, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by a fine at the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On July 26, 2019, the Defendant driven a DK7 passenger vehicle owned by C with a blood alcohol concentration of approximately 0.089% at a section of about 60 km in Seoul, the area from the road in front of the domicile of Gangwon Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-gun, Seoul, to the road in the upper south of the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20348, Jul. 26, 2019>

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition survey report (a photograph attached);

1. Notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and the review of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Requests for CCTV image cooperation (ROM attachment);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of records of drinking driving by a suspect A);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures: The instant case is ordered by taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc.: (a) the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was driving on an expressway while causing a single traffic accident in the tunnel, leaving the tunnel, leaving the tunnel without leaving the vehicle alone; and (b) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking driving two times prior to the instant case; (c) the Defendant has been punished for a large traffic accident; (d) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s crime; (e) the Defendant has no record of punishment for a drunk driving after 207; and (e) the Defendant has no record of punishment for a drunk driving.