However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On January 19, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime at the same court on July 13, 2012.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was punished twice or more for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as above, the Defendant again driven B-low-income motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.079% from the 100-meter away from the front side of the road in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu to about 49-gil-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, for about 100 meters on January 15, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Making a statement on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and inquiring about the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a written inquiry, a written inquiry, a report on investigation (power of drinking driving), and a report on investigation (related to the previous conviction and confirmation of the same type);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (or choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the condition that the defendant is highly likely to repeat a crime by driving under drinking again even though he/she has been already punished eight times only

However, all of the sentencing conditions should be considered, such as the fact that the driver does not drive drinking again and is deeply against the driver, and the violation of road traffic laws has no record of being punished more severe than the fine).