However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[criminal power] On October 26, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's support on October 26, 2012, and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a fine in the same court on June 24, 2014, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving two or more times, on December 5, 2018, the Defendant driven a f car at a distance of about 30 meters to the front of the E-office located in D on the road located in front of the cafeteria Donam-do, Ynam-do, under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.126% at around 23:30 on December 5, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstances of the driving of a drinking house, report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of an drinking driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. A report on internal accidents (e.g., details of crackdown on drivers);

1. Previous record: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal records, and a copy of each summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, 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 reason for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is the crime of causing the heavy danger of many people.

The Defendant, through a fine twice, driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol even though he was seriously warneded of the danger of drinking.

At the time of committing the instant crime, the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was relatively high, and the police officer called up after having received a report that the vehicle driven by the Defendant stops at the center of the road, was flicked on the window of the vehicle, but the Defendant was driving a vehicle again and driving the vehicle, and was shocked on the normal level.

In light of these regulatory developments, the Defendant appears to have been in difficult condition at the time, and there was a risk of leading to a big accident.

The defendant.