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

[Power of violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act] On August 8, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Gwangju District Court for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. and KRW 2 million by the same court on January 9, 2013 for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 01:30 on April 25, 2020, the Defendant driven an EK5 car from the street of Gwangju Dong-gu to the street in front of the convenience store located in D of the same Gu, while under the influence of approximately 0.085% of blood alcohol concentration.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report (Calculation of blood alcohol concentration);

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

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, reply reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the same kind of power);

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he was punished twice due to a drunk driving in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and even if he was punished once due to the previous drunk driving, and the instant case constitutes the revocation of the driver’s license, and thus, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor.

However, considering the circumstances, such as the fact that there is a certain interval between the previous conviction for drunk driving and the date of the instant crime, the Defendant has no record of punishment heavier than imprisonment with prison labor, and the Defendant sold the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant by breaking his mistake, the period of punishment shall be set within the applicable sentencing range, and the execution of the sentence shall be suspended, and the participation in the compliance driving instruction shall also be taken into account.