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

On March 20, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), etc. by the Suwon District Court on August 19, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court on August 19, 201, and on November 5, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court on November 5, 2013.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant driven C rocketing car with approximately 800 meters alcohol content from around 0.074% from around 22:15 of the same day to around 22:15 of the same day, at around 20:0 on the front of the stone, which was under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding reports on drivers of drinking alcohol and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking alcohol;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the previous and confirmation), one copy of the judgment, and two copies of the summary order;

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for the Reduction of Small Quantity (see, e.g., the distance and circumstances of driving, the details of the relevant driving, and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration is not relatively high);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act lies in a disadvantage that the Defendant had repeated driving of the instant drinking even though he/she had been convicted of driving alcohol three times before or after drinking, and even though he/she had been convicted of a suspended sentence once.

However, a punishment shall be determined by taking into account the fact that the distance from driving of the instant drinking alcohol of this case is too much than 800 meters and the driving of the instant drug was made to a pharmacy for the purpose of fraud, that is against the fact that the blood alcohol concentration at the time is relatively high.