Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be postponed for one year and six months from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[criminal power] On September 24, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Busan District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and on May 22, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million from the Ulsan District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 17, 2020, at around 21:30, the Defendant driven an E-high-est car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.102% in the 3km section from Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, to the roads adjacent to D secondary schools located in the same military C.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

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

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (report on confirmation of the same kind of force)-related 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 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. Although there was a record of being punished three times for drinking driving prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of drinking alcohol in this case at the time, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level at the time is high, and that the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not minor, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant

This case's crime does not realize the risk of traffic accident, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime, there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, and the fact that there is no particular criminal record after being punished by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act on May 22, 2012, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

(b) other.