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

On June 4, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Hongsung Branch of the Busan District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and KRW 2 million from the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million on August 14, 2013, respectively.

At around 00:50 on March 7, 2020, the Defendant driven a Fran vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.154% at the section of approximately 1.2km from the front of the “Ccafeteria” road located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon to the front of the “E” road located in Daejeon-gu.

As a result, the Defendant violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking-driving, field photographs and drinkmatic photographs, notification on the results of the crackdown on drinking-driving, circumstantial statements of drinking-driving drivers, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of drinking-driving drivers);

1. Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment to the same criminal records and a summary order), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the summary order;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, or the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the order to attend a lecture has several times the records of punishment for drunk driving, and again, the driving of the instant case was made again, and the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant at the time of the discovery of the instant case was 0.154% so that the Defendant could not memory the fact that the Defendant was driven by 0.154%: Provided, That the punishment is determined as ordered by taking into account the fact that the Defendant recognized the mistake and reflects it, and all other sentencing conditions recorded in the records, such as the Defendant’