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

On November 5, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daegu District Court on March 16, 2009, to a fine of 2 million won for the same crime, etc. at the Seobu branch branch of the Daegu District Court on March 16, 2009, and to a fine of 7 million won for the same crime, etc. at the Daegu District Court on March 23, 2010, and was punished two times or more for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On November 24, 2013, at around 21:30, the Defendant driven BM3 motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.160% from the section of approximately 1km to the road located in the same 64-2, from the front of the Daegu-gu Incheon Nam-gu University Hospital to the front of the same Gu-U.S. University Hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the circumstances of the driver, report on the detection of the driver, and report on the driver;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports (Attachment to the same summary order) including criminal records, etc.;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 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. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Order to Attend the law enforcement lecture has the record of being punished several times for drunk driving, the defendant committed the crime of this case at the same time. However, the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution or more, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various reasons for sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, character and environment, intelligence