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

On April 19, 2019, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refising to measure the noise level) in the Goyang Branch of the District Court in order to take a summary order of KRW 5 million.

On June 25, 2020, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.158% on blood alcohol level around 01:35 on June 25, 2020, and the Defendant driven Bdiserger vehicles at the section of about 15 km from the boundary of the red-in zone in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu to the point of 71.7km (in the direction of transmission) of the Hongyang-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving, a report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and a report on internal investigation (at the time of leaving the site);

1. Records of drinking driving under the judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a summary order;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, 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 Road Traffic Act amended on December 24, 2018, as of December 24, 2018, upon the demand that the punishment for the latest drunk driving should be strengthened for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, has strengthened the punishment to be imposed by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years (one year and not more than two years, even if discretionary mitigation is conducted).

As stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, the Defendant had already been punished for refusing to take a drinking test once, but again carried out drinking again in only one year, and the blood alcohol level is 0.158%, so it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized and divided, there is no criminal power except the power of refusal of the above drinking alcohol measurement, and again, he does not drive under the influence of alcohol again.