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

On March 9, 2009, the defendant received a summary order of a fine of KRW 1,50,000 from the Suwon District Court to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and has violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

On June 7, 2020, at around 01:58, the Defendant driven a d SM6 car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.07% from approximately 10m to the front road from Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Western-si, Seocheon-si to C, and driven it twice or more.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, report on the results of the control of drinking driving, and the ledger of use of a drinking measuring instrument;

1. Investigation report (Evidence No. 9);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, inquiry reports, and investigation reports;

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 for a crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (when suspension of execution of sentence of imprisonment is invalidated or revoked);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspension of execution is that the defendant, while he/she was unable to have a substitute driver after eating with his/her family, was driving at a very short distance for the defendant's parking in the middle of the road, while driving a vehicle in the middle of the road, and the defendant was discovered by the report of the above substitute driver. Although the case does not reach the degree of recognition of emergency evacuation, the circumstance is not considered.

The sentencing of this point is particularly considered.