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

On September 10, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Seoul Western District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On August 13, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Jungyang Branch Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on March 13, 2013.

On March 3, 2020, at around 02:0, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle at approximately 17k section from the front of the apartment site B in the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si to the new ICT road located in Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si at around 02:20 on the same day, with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.083% under the influence of alcohol level.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and on the circumstantial statements of drinking drivers;

1. Suppression photographs;

1. Records of drinking driving under the judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of the same type of suspect records);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

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

1. The Road Traffic Act amended on December 24, 2018 on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (amended on December 24, 2018) strengthens the punishment to be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years but not more than five years (one year and not more than two years and not more than six months even if mitigation is carried out) when choosing imprisonment for a person who has driven under the influence of alcohol more than twice, the defendant has already been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol again even though he had already been punished twice, and the fact that the circumstances after the crime are not good after the crime, such as stating that another person has been driving under the influence of alcohol after the crime, is disadvantageous to the defendant.