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

On March 20, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million with a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Suwon District Court on March 20, 2009; on August 19, 2010, a person who had the record of being issued a summary order of KRW 1 million with a fine of KRW 00,000 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court on August 19, 201. On September 13, 2013:0: (a) from the front of the access road to the Daejin University located in the Seocheon-si Line in Seocheon-si, Macheon-si to the front of the restaurant at the same level of approximately 100 meters to the same day, and (b) a bitet-free car with a blood alcohol concentration of KRW 0.173% under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written report from an employee of an employer;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and investigation report-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the defendant among the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (including repeated consideration of the reasons for both punishment, which are favorable to the defendant);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is that the defendant had a record of punishment for drunk driving two or more times, but there is a high possibility of criticism in the fact that drinking driving of this case was done.

However, the defendant is sentenced to the same punishment as the order in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided and does not repeat the crime, and that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine due to drinking driving.