However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 28, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000,000 from the Incheon District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act; on November 21, 2008, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act; on March 13, 2009, the summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act was issued to the same court.

Although the Defendant had had a history of driving alcohol twice or more as above, on January 30, 2016, the Defendant driven BM vehicle with a alcohol concentration of 0.095% at around 00:00,000, and proceeded with approximately 300 meters from the roads near the Yandong-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon to the roads near the 813-9, Cheongdo-do, located in 813-9, as at the same time, to the roads front of the 1 week.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous conviction: Application of an inquiry letter, a copy of 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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the fact that his/her mistake is repented in depth, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Defendant’s Order to Attend, despite the fact that the Defendant had three times of the same kind of crime, which led to the instant crime. However, it does not seem that the Defendant violated other traffic-related laws, and the Defendant was committed the instant crime in mind that he would bring his marriage to his house after coming through marriage, and it is hard to say that the Defendant did not repeat the instant crime, such as the Defendant’s late and late her mistake, and disposal of all vehicles owned by the Defendant and vehicles driven by the Defendant at the time of crackdown, etc. In addition, the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation, environment, and family relationship are all the conditions for sentencing.