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

1. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Changwon District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on July 8, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act from the Changwon District Court.

On March 3, 2019, at around 03:25, the Defendant driven a B Indian car under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.068% from the 11km section to the front road of the Jindong-gu, Jindong-si, Kim Young-si, Jin-si, Kim Young-si, Kim Young-si, in front of the PC bank.

2. No person who violates the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall operate any automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance;

The Defendant operated a B human vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

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

1. Mandatory insurance policies;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of two copies of criminal records, etc. inquiry report, investigation report (former and previous records), and summary order;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving), Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the main sentence of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation, and the choice of imprisonment for each sentence;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Although the Defendant had been punished twice by a fine due to drinking driving, the Defendant again went to the instant drinking driving and did not purchase a mandatory insurance policy.

However, there is no record that the defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again while disposing of the vehicle at the time of committing the crime, there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, and the age of the defendant.