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

[criminal power] On December 18, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 18, 2009; imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspended execution two years; and imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on August 25, 201; and on March 27, 2015 at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 27, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 02:50 on December 25, 2018, the Defendant driven a D car while under the influence of alcohol content of about 10 meters at a C golf course parking lot located in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, and D car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.096%.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment to the judgment of the same kind of power and personal confinement status);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Act on Probation and Order to Attend, are circumstances favorable to the defendant; (b) the defendant has been punished several times due to the same type of crime; and (c) the defendant's criminal record relation with the defendant, the defendant's possibility of running without a license seems to be considerably high enough that continuous management and supervision of the probation office would be necessary even if the defendant does not drive without a license; and (d) considering all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records