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.

On May 25, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,00,000 to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), a fine of KRW 3 million to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving) at the Jeonju District Court on August 12, 2008, and a fine of KRW 2,50,000 to a fine at the Jeonju District Court on August 14, 2009 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving).

On April 3, 2018, at around 20:45, the Defendant driven Cpoter 1 ton of alcohol in the 7km section of approximately 0.137% alcohol level from the 7km section of the 7km to the road front of the mountain of the mountain of the same Gun from the cafeteria-gun Do road in the front of the mountain of the mountain of the same Gun.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving and inquiry of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

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

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply letter to inquiry, such as criminal history;

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 (Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the conditions of sentencing favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors are repeated for sentencing on the grounds of sentencing);

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime, despite the fact that the reason for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the order to attend a lecture had already been punished three times or for drinking driving, and the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime is considerably high is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects the defendant, there is no previous conviction other than a fine, and the defendant does not drive drinking again.

The fact that the vehicle in this case was disposed of is considered as favorable to the defendant, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the argument in this case are considered.