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

On October 12, 2011, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,00,000 as a fine for the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch.

On October 27, 2019, at around 01:33, the Defendant driven a DNA car with a alcohol level of about 0.104% while under the influence of alcohol level of about 1km from the front road of the Gumi City B from the front road to the front road of the C building.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the police about E (second time);

1. Inspection results of the crackdown on drinking driving, investigation report (for the statement of the reporter and specified time for driving);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, investigation reports (attached to summary orders);

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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 was sentenced to punishment repeatedly commits a crime even though he had the record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the punishment for such crime is not less complicated;

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

In addition, the defendant stated that he was driving at the beginning of the investigation, and denied the crime, and tried to conceal the crime in response to the statement of the proxy driving technician as if he was driving, along with the pay for the workplace.

Nevertheless, there is a question about whether the Defendant is seriously against his criminal liability, such as making a statement that the Defendant wishes to recover a special driver's license.

However, the defendant attempted to conceal the above crimes in the middle of investigation.