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

[Criminal Power] On February 7, 2020, the Defendant was charged with summary charges for violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court's Maritime District Court's branch office.

After the prosecution of this case, a fine of KRW 5 million was issued on March 6, 2020, and the above summary order was finalized on March 19, 2020.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 16, 2020, at around 01:00, the Defendant driven a D window Som car in the state of alcohol leveling 0.069% of blood alcohol level from the section of about 2 km up to the front road of Ydo-gun, Jeonnam-do, Seoul, to the front road of Ydo-gun.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the situation of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the status of a drinking driver), and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry report (A), report on results of confirmation of the previous disposition, investigation report (Attachment to a copy of indictment for the same kind of crime as a suspect), and application of the provisions of one statute as a copy of indictment;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, or 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 sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the order to provide community service and order to attend a lecture has already been conducted one time, and the defendant was under investigation and was under indictment for the summary of drinking, but instead, the defendant did not cause serious danger to the safety of the general public by driving under the influence of drinking again, and the defendant should not cause a traffic accident under the influence of drinking during a sudden driving.

However, even though it is rush, there was only physical damage due to the risk caused by the defendant, but there was no loss of human life.

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant has no record of punishment other than drinking driving on one occasion prior to the instant case.

Other cases, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.