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.

The Defendant is a person who driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on February 28, 2013 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 1 million at the Suwon Friwon on March 27, 2013), who driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on September 28, 2017 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the Suwon Friwon Friwon on November 7, 2017), and violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions.

On April 9, 2018, the Defendant had been punished twice or more due to drinking alcohol driving at around 23:30, but, on the other hand, was driving Bho-do under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.161% at a distance of about 300 meters from the front day of the active duty service in the Han-si flood zone to the front day of the port-to-face in the Han-si flood zone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reporting on the arrest of a case;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (the same criminal record and confirmation of the suspect) statute;

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 to mitigate small amount;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was committed by the Defendant, who had had a record of driving under drinking not less than twice, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the Defendant, and the Defendant was found to have driven under drinking on September 2017 and again driven the instant drinking after the lapse of six months, so there is a high possibility of criticism even in view of the circumstances leading up to driving under the instant drinking, which the Defendant stated.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and there is no record that the defendant has been punished for the suspension of execution or more for the same crime, and the age, sex, environment, and crime of this case.