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 December 16, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a summary order of KRW 2 million by the same court on January 9, 2009, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 19, 2019, at around 22:40, the Defendant driven a clateral car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.176% in the section of approximately five meters prior to the Jung-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and copies of each summary order issued under statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. The fact that the driving of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in spite of the history of punishment more than twice due to the driving under the influence of alcohol for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is not good in the quality of the crime, in light of the degree of blood alcohol concentration at the time, and the frequency and contents of the same criminal power, etc., the crime is disadvantageous to the defendant, or the defendant appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect his/her criminal act, and the vehicle parked in another person's parking zone at the time is moved at the request of the resident, and the crime is committed.