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

[criminal power] On September 16, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on September 16, 2009, a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court on January 12, 2010, and a summary order of KRW 7 million for the same crime in the same court on August 25, 2014, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 7, 2019, at around 20:25, the Defendant driven a DNA cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.093% in a five-meter section from the near C, located in Yangsan-si, to the galle road.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition on drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition on drinking under the Road Traffic Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (report on confirmation of the same criminal records), and copies of each summary order applicable;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 201);

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant, is considered in light of circumstances favorable to the defendant

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (the repeated consideration of conditions favorable to the above defendant);

1. The fact that the driving of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not good in spite of the fact that there has been two or more reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level was not low at the time, and the criminal liability is not easy, and the possibility of criticism is not small in light of the frequency, contents, timing, etc. of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc.