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

On September 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution at the Suwon District Court on September 20, 2012 for violating the Road Traffic Act, etc., and was punished for drinking driving four times.

Nevertheless, at around 23:35 on March 30, 2020, the Defendant driven a 1km Fworkon car in front of the “E” located in Suwon-si Station B, Suwon-si, under the influence of alcohol of 0.066% of blood alcohol content.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, notification of the results of drinking driving control, and the results of respiratory measurement;

1. Previous convictions as stated in the judgment: Criminal history records, briefings (A), investigation reports (Attachment to attached judgments, etc. of the same kind of power), -Jain District Court Decision 2012 Highest 659, Highest 167, Highest 2012 Highest 167, Highest -Jain District Court Decision 2008 Highest 45020, Highest - Military Order 2008 Highest - Military Court 2008 Highest 39

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Although the defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order and the order to attend a lecture, had four times the history of punishment for drunk driving, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, in addition, the drinking driving of this case was conducted under the influence of alcohol, and considering the risk of drinking driving to many and unspecified persons and the purport of the amendment of the amended law whose statutory penalty is raised, the nature of

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the punishment as ordered, shall be determined by taking into account the various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the record, such as the circumstances after the