Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years after the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Criminal Power] On October 29, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 14, 2019, at around 23:18, the Defendant driven an e-motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.132% from around 65 meters from the front of the public parking lot B, the front of the public parking lot, to the front of the same Gu C and D convenience store.

As a result, the Defendant violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous record of judgment: Criminal history records, one copy of a summary order, and the application of statutes governing the list of related cases;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. From one year to two years and six months, imprisonment with prison labor within the applicable sentencing range by law;

2. Determination of sentence, taking into account the following circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the sentence as ordered.

- The circumstances in which the Defendant driven a short distance to meet the short distance after having taken a proxy driving engineer are considered. However, there is no reason to find that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is higher at the time of the instant crime and that it should have been driven as such.

- The defendant has been subject to criminal punishment for the same crime before, as stated in its reasoning.

However, there is no other force of criminal punishment.