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.

[criminal history] On June 14, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on September 3, 2014, respectively.

[2] On March 14, 2018, at around 02:43, the Defendant driven B rocketing vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of about 50 meters from the section of approximately 50 meters of alcohol during blood to the road in front of the Dong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Bupyeong-gu, with water in the 56-1 (Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Moddong).

Accordingly, even though the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, he again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the relevant provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the previous confirmation twice the previous records), and summary order, respectively;

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is an offense that causes damage to the life, body, etc. of a person who is highly likely to cause harm to the life, body, etc. of a person who has already been punished twice or more due to drinking driving, and thus, the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, is the same kind of crime before.