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

On February 4, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Daegu District Court on February 4, 2008.

On November 23, 2019, around 01:50 on November 23, 2019, the Defendant driven a B-hand car with alcohol concentration of about 40km from a 01:50 mnife in Daegu to the third mnife of the old-si Mapo-dong Police Station.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the occurrence of each traffic accident;

1. On-site photographs, each accident site photographs, and the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a summary order;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for orders to attend lectures and orders to provide community service;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years and six months;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria: Not set;

3. In light of the fact that the defendant who has been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime committed, even though he had the record of punishment, and that the distance of the defendant's driving was considerably long, the punishment for such crime is not weak;

It does not seem that there was an imminent circumstance that the defendant should have driven.

However, there is a reason to consider the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes, that the defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime since 2008, and that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine.

In addition to the above various circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, occupation, criminal record, family relation, circumstances after the crime, and attitudes after the crime are considered together as ordered.