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.

[criminal history] On December 18, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2.5 million from the Cheongju District Court to a fine of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on August 28, 2013, from the Incheon District Court to a fine of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

[2] On July 8, 2017, at around 21:54, the Defendant driven a Grand Cross under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.182% from the 10km section of alcohol level from the 10km section to the 3rd road of Incheon Western-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and the statement in the circumstances of the driver;

1. A written appraisal of alcohol during blood;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, (A), investigation reports (verification of the records of driving under drinking twice a suspect), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of two summary orders;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, once again driven alcohol despite the past record of the judgment, even though he had been sentenced to a fine due to drinking twice as stated in the judgment.

Furthermore, as the defendant is a person who has been an acting driver, and the driving of the defendant's drinking by proxy is revealed through the drinking control while driving on his/her behalf, the crime is very bad.

In addition, the defendant is likely to cause a significant risk to road traffic for not only his/her own, but also his/her customers who are standing on his/her behalf and drivers who are driving on the road at that time.

Considering that the Defendant’s drinking volume is the measurement of blood collection, the Defendant’s drinking volume has reached a considerable degree of time, and the breath measurement is also 0.142%, and the degree of the breath measurement is not easy.

The drinking driving shall be prevented.