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

On May 23, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Seoul Central District Court.

On August 30, 2019, at around 22:19, the Defendant driven a Cknife car in the state of alcohol of about 7 km from around the 100 Gansan-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul to the front-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, to the Han River (Fansan-ro), with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.066%.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (in response to suspect's blood alcohol concentration appraisal result);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., circumstances favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (recognition of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the order to attend a lecture (unfavorable circumstances) is that the statutory punishment for a drunk driving crime has been continuously aggravated due to serious social harm caused by a drunk driving, changes in legal sentiment of the general public, etc., there is a need for strict punishment for a drunk driving crime.

Moreover, even though the defendant had a history of criminal punishment twice due to drinking driving in the past, there is a high possibility of criticism by driving under the influence of alcohol.

[Ligue circumstances] The defendant recognized the crime of this case and repented his mistake.

The level of exploitation is relatively high, and there was no other additional damage.

The criminal records, which the defendant was punished due to drinking immediately before the instant case, were about seven years prior to the criminal records.

there is a dependent.

(2).