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.

The Defendant is a person who driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on May 9, 2015 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the source of water supply on June 1, 2015), who driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on October 16, 2016 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 2 million at the source of water supply on October 31, 2016), and violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On April 29, 2018, the Defendant driven a Ba-ri car from approximately 200 meters to the front road of Suwon-si Transfer Station 1045, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, a water source of alcohol content of at least 0.135%, while under the influence of alcohol during blood transfusion, from around 200 meters to the front road of Suwon-si Transfer Station 1111.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving at least twice, was driving the car under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reporting on the detection of a primary driver;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (in addition to a summary order before driving the same kind of drinking and a summary order);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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 crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is a case where the defendant, who has been able to drive under drinking not less than twice the same, drives under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. The defendant, for the last three years, has not been aware of the fact that he had been found to drive under the influence of drinking again without being aware of the fact that he had been found to drive under the influence of drinking

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, that the defendant has no record of punishment for the suspension of execution or heavier, and that there is no other defendant's person.