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

[criminal history] On November 10, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Ulsan District Court (dacting driving) and KRW 1.5 million for the same crime in the Daegu District Court Port Branch on May 15, 2013, respectively.

[2] On June 1, 2018, the Defendant driven a CPoter II cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling to approximately 0.056% in a section of about 40km from a section of 0.056 meters near the road located in the YY-si, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the front parking lot of the public office located in Ulsan-si, U.S., U.S. Eup., the Defendant driven a Cpoter II cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling to approximately 0.056%.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol, report on the circumstances of the driver of drinking alcohol, and investigation report (report on the situations of the driver of drinking alcohol);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances specified in the grounds for sentencing shall be considered):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is an offense for which the sentencing guideline is not set.

- The Defendant stated that he was led to confession and in depth in this court.

- There is no history of punishment exceeding a fine.

In spite of the record of punishment for the crime of violating the Traffic Act (drinking) on the two occasions, it again committed the instant crime. - The driving under the influence of alcohol resulted in dangerous conditions due to the driving of alcohol, such as the discovery of the state of being locked on the road while driving under the influence of alcohol.

In the above circumstances, the above circumstances are as follows.