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

On November 9, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. on ten months at the Changwon District Court. On July 3, 2015, the Daegu District Court issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a fine for the same crime, and on June 9, 2016 at the same court, issued a summary order of KRW 6 million as a fine for the same crime, etc.

On July 12, 2019, at around 00:47, the Defendant driven a DNA car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.172% at the 1km section from the roads front of the Guro-gu Office located in the Gu-si, Gu-si, Si-si, to the roads front of C in the Gu-U.S., Si-si B.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the status of driving under influence of alcohol, report on the status of driving under influence of alcohol, report on the decision of drinking drivers, inquiry report on the control of drinking driving, and written request for appraisal;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry report, judgment, and summary order under each statute;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the probation, order to attend lectures or order to provide community service;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Two to five years of imprisonment;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria: Not set;

3. Circumstances should be taken into account that the Defendant who made a decision of sentence fully acknowledges the crimes.

However, it seems that there was no urgent circumstance that the defendant has been subject to punishment for the same kind of crime even though the defendant had already been subject to punishment several times, and that the degree of drinking at the time of the crime did not be somewhat weak and the driver should have performed driving even after drinking alcohol. In light of the fact that the defendant had been subject to punishment several times for the same crime and that there was a history of punishment for the same kind of crime and that the punishment includes imprisonment as well as imprisonment, the criminal liability of the defendant is somewhat weak.