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 driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on July 1, 2014 (the issuance of a summary order of a fine of two million won at the Suwon Friwon on July 11, 2014), driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on January 3, 2017 (the issuance of a summary order of a fine of two million won at the Suwon Friwon on January 19, 2017), and violating Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions.

On June 29, 2018, the Defendant again driven a B beer cruise car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.081% from the 2km section of approximately 2km to the 23-10-way road of approximately 275-10, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the 275-10-ro, the flow route.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Arrest report on occurrence of the case, measurement of drinking, photograph and report on the parking place of the vehicle driven;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and 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 copy of a summary order of the same kind of force of the suspect);

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 that the defendant, who had been able to drive under drinking not less than twice, has driven under the influence of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and the defendant, even though he had been found to have been able to drive under the influence of drinking twice during the past five years, there is a lot of possibility of criticism.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, the defendant has no record of being punished for the suspension of the execution of drinking for the past ten years, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc.