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

3.

On June 15, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Chuncheon District Court, and on January 28, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime from the Daejeon District Court and received two times the same records of driving under the same kind of alcohol.

On December 24, 2019, at around 17:00, the Defendant driven a Cpoter II-motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.131% in approximately 8km section from around 18:17 to the point of 266.3km of the Gyeong-dong, Daejeon-gu.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: The results of inquiry and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of investigation report (verification of the records of the same kind of drinking driving);

1. Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the order to provide community service and attend lectures was that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was higher than 0.131% at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s walk was in an inaccurate and inaccurate state, and the degree of the drinking was high.

Therefore, since the defendant increased the risk of traffic accident due to the crime of this case, the illegality of the crime of this case is high.

In the past, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving, as shown in the previous judgment, and thus, there is a high possibility of criticism.

However, we consider the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, and that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime.