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 November 27, 2008, the Defendant was issued a fine of KRW 1,50,000 to the Seoul Northern District Court for a violation of Road Traffic Act (dacting driving), and on December 19, 2008, issued a fine of KRW 700,000 to the same crime at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and on February 18, 2013, issued a fine of KRW 3,50,000 to the Seoul Northern District Court for the same crime.

[2] Although Defendant 1 had been able to violate the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol twice or more, Defendant 2 driven a car with C low alcohol leveling 0.231% under the influence of alcohol on July 20, 2018, around 07:50 on July 20, 2018 at around 30 Madro-ro 10 meters in front of the 10m-ro parking lot.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the result of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

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 grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant, who had been punished twice or more due to drinking driving, once again drives a vehicle, has not been less than the nature of the crime as the case of driving a vehicle by drinking, the amount of alcohol concentration exceeds 0.231% in the blood of the Defendant at the time, and the occurrence of a traffic accident involving physical damage during driving under drinking, etc.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and against the mistake, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine for the same crime before, that the perpetrator wanted the defendant's prior to the crime of this case, and that he would not drive drinking again.

It is hard to say that it is favorable to the defendant.

. The above.