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

On December 20, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of 1.5 million won or more as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on December 30, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of 2.5 million won or more as the same crime in the same court on December 30, 201, and on December 6, 201, issued a summary order of 2.5 million won or more as the same crime.

As above, the Defendant, who had been punished twice or more due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and operated a Fysttool car at approximately 50 meters away from the 50-meter section of alcohol level to the front road located in D on the road in front of the CK parking lot located in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, on December 29, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reports on the occurrence of each traffic accident, notification on the results of crackdown on driving under influence of alcohol, photographs at the scene of the accident, and investigation reports (or statements made by

1. Previous records: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of inquiry reports and investigation reports (verification twice the sound-driven power);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, and 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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation, order to attend lectures or order to provide community service;

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than six months up to one year and six months;

2. Scope of recommending sentences: Whether the sentencing criteria are not set.

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced, driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.127%, and caused a contact accident.

In addition, even though the defendant was punished three times by a fine due to drinking driving in 2006, 2011, and 2012, he committed the same kind of crime.

In light of the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant, driving distance, details of previous punishment records and intervals therewith, and other factors of sentencing as stated in the arguments and records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment is imposed as ordered.