2.Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

On May 18, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of up to 3 million won for a violation of road traffic law (drinking driving) in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on May 18, 2012, and on June 19, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of up to 5 million won in the same court due to the same crime, etc., and was sentenced to a fine of up to 5 million won in the same court.

On November 10, 2017, the Defendant driven a Coper car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.134% from the 1km section to the 244th road in which it is impossible to identify the trade name of the Toper, Toper, Toper, Toper, Toper, Toper, Toper, in a state of under the influence of alcohol content of at least 0.134%, from the front day of the drinking house to the 244th road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about criminal history and report on investigation (Attachment of the previous summary order).

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of a sentence of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection and Attending Order, and Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order and Order to Attending Order, and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. have the history of having been punished for driving under drinking, and the court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on November 27, 2015 for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and repeated driving under drinking even though the judgment became final and conclusive on December 5,

The defendant lacks the awareness of compliance seriously.

I seem to appear.

Although the defendant should be punished strictly, considering the circumstances leading to the driving of the instant case revealed in the public trial and the investigation records, driving distance, alcohol level, etc., the defendant is expected to be well aware of through the observation of the protection of the defendant, the implementation of community service and the lecture attendance order, and the last place is to be taken, and the punishment shall be determined like the order.