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

On October 18, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million from the Daegu District Court due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On July 13, 2020, at around 06:38, the Defendant driven a F i30 vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.112% from approximately 400 meters to the front road of the E-cafeteria located in D from the Do near Daegu-gu C Hospital.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports to criminal records, prosecution investigation reports (Binding of summary orders for sound driving, etc.) and statutes;

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

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

1. Although there was a history of punishment for drunk driving for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended by taking into account the fact that the punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment is not good for the same crime, the fact that the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment, and that the degree of blood alcohol concentration exceeds the revocation standards, etc. after the implementation of the current Road Traffic Act, and that the punishment for the crime is not easy: Provided, That the execution of a sentence shall be suspended by taking into account the fact that there is no record of punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier for the same crime, that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, that there is no health condition of both the defendant and his wife, that the strict supervision and supervision of the probation officer before the prevention of recidivism is appropriate. It is so decided as per Disposition