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

On March 23, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 by the Changwon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On December 14, 2019, at around 00:50, the Defendant driven an Eflor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.13% from the 1km section to the front road of the D Hospital located in the same Gu C from Changwon-si, Changwon-si B apartment road, Changwon-si, Seoul, to the day before the D Hospital located in the same Gu C.

As a result, the Defendant violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, copies of summary order, and application of one copy of summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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 (The following consideration shall be repeated in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

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

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

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not set.

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to a sentence, was under the influence of drinking, even though he had the ability to punish a fine once in 209 due to drinking.

However, the defendant reflects on the crime.

The drinking driving did not cause a traffic accident while driving.

The distance of driving is relatively not along.

There is no criminal offense beyond a fine against the defendant.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleading.