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.

[2] On August 14, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million to a fine of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Chuncheon District Court on August 14, 2009, and on April 11, 2011, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime.

[2] On May 1, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.267% in blood around 04:10 on May 1, 2016, driven B-learning automobiles at approximately 400 meters from the underground parking lot of the apartment in the world of Ycheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, through the front of the CU convenience store located in the above e letter, to the above e-e-e-mentioned apartment parking lot.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the detection of a driver in charge (blood collection result), and inquiry about the result of crackdown on drinking driving (No. 2010-6-1402 -0283);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (report attached to a summary order for driving a suspect past drinking);

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 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The reasons for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection and the order to provide community service and attend lectures, are the factors for sentencing disadvantageous to the Defendant, as shown in the judgment of the Defendant, that the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to drinking, while driving a motor vehicle in a very high state of alcohol concentration of 0.267% in the dynamic blood.

On the other hand, the defendant does not repeat the same crime while breaking and opposing his wrongs.

The fact that the defendant's driving of the drinking of this case does not have a relatively much distance than 400 meters is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

(b) other.