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

On January 8, 2004, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Daegu District Court to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Gangnam Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court on January 6, 2014.

On July 10, 2019, at around 01:31, the Defendant driven B QM5 vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.045% in blood alcohol concentration from the front of the main point of the Do located in the Geongdong-gu, Daegu Pungdong-gu to the front of the Suwon Police Station located as the monthly balp.

As a result, the defendant violated the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, prosecutorial investigation reports (not before disposition and report on results of confirmation) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended in consideration of the fact that the defendant had the history of punishment for drunk driving twice but has been significantly strengthened with the social request that eradicates the harmful effects of drunk driving, and that the current Road Traffic Act, which has recently strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment, further strengthening the risk of recidivism, and thus, requires severe warning as the responsibility for the crime is unlikely to be taken into account in that the risk of recidivism is unlikely. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that there is no more severe punishment than imprisonment without prison labor, the blood alcohol concentration level falls short of the criteria for revocation of license, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration level falls short of the criteria for revocation of license, the fact that the defendant's age and family environment are faced with economic difficulties, and the execution of a sentence will be suspended in consideration of the age of the