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

On August 22, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court on September 21, 2009. A person who was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on September 21, 2009. Around August 13, 2012, on August 19:25, the Defendant driven a vehicle of KRW 1m to move the Defendant’s B-be truck parked in his place to another place under the influence of alcohol concentration of KRW 0.220% from Jung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 13, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, report on actual condition, report on the detection of a primary driver, and report on the circumstantial statement of a primary driver;

1. An accident scene photograph;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of criminal records and investigation reports (related previous convictions and confirmations) and statutes;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2(2) of the Criminal Act of probation and community service order and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, Etc. provides that the current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the provision on prohibition of drinking driving twice or more shall be punished more strictly in the event of drinking again, with the aim of preventing the drinking-driving which threatens road traffic safety and overcoming awareness of it, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the history of punishment twice in 2008 and 209 already been punished for drinking-driving, and the Defendant committed the instant crime. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was very high to 0.20%, and the Defendant had a criminal record related to two times or more in addition to the above criminal records, a strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized.