However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 13, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a fine for a violation of road traffic law (drinking driving) from the Seogu District Court Branch on March 13, 2009, and on February 3, 2014, issued a summary order of the same amount as the same crime in the same court.

Although the Defendant was punished twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as above, on October 23, 2017, the Defendant driven a BP car under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.097% from the 2km section of approximately 2km to the front road of the same Gu in the middle-gu Seocheon-gu, Daegu-gu, Seocheon-gu, Daegu-gu, and vicelet around the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol and reporting on the situation of driving alcohol;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and a copy of summary order;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant was punished for driving under the influence of alcohol, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant as he/she once again renders the instant drinking.

However, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake and reflects, the defendant has no penalty heavier than that imposed, and the criminal records are sentenced as ordered.