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

On April 20, 2019, around 01:26, the Defendant driven a DNA car while under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.184% of blood alcohol concentration in the front of the 1km road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on circumstantial statements of a host driver and reports on detection of a host driver;

1. Article 148-2(2)2 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had been subject to punishment twice due to drunk driving, etc., again causes physical damage by causing a traffic accident while driving the instant drinking, and the drinking level is very high. Therefore, the corresponding punishment is required.

However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected that he will not repeat the same mistake, and there is no heavy criminal punishment that exceeds the suspension of the execution of imprisonment prior to the instant case.

It did not cause physical damage due to a traffic accident caused by a drunk driving.

The defendant lives while supporting his family.

Considering these circumstances and other conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the Defendant’s beliefing that the Defendant’s situation is different once again and the execution of the above imprisonment is suspended, the sentence is determined as per Disposition.