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

On May 18, 2017, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act by the Gwangju District Court.

On July 10, 2020, the Defendant indicated the blood alcohol concentration of 0.184% in the charge of blood alcohol concentration of 11:42 on July 10, 2020 as “0.192%.” However, according to evidence, the final blood alcohol concentration applied by the above-mark public formula is “0.184%.”

However, this is a clerical error in the blood alcohol concentration within the constituent elements of the same statutory penalty, and it is corrected ex officio without any changes in the indictment.

In the state of alcohol, from the front side of the Gwangju Mine-gu to the front side of the same C apartment Ddong in the Gu, approximately approximately 210 meters E-high-est car was driven.

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. Investigation report (0.184% as a result of the re-Calculation of the Tramark);

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (applicable before and after a suspect's drunk driving is reported once);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

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

1. The Defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, committed the instant crime again even though he/she was punished for drunk driving, and the period between his/her previous record of drinking alcohol driving and the date of the instant crime does not have a significant interval. As such, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on the grounds that the instant drinking water is very high.

However, the defendant has no power to be punished heavier than imprisonment, and the defendant has reduced the amount of punishment by taking into account the circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances such as the defendant's wrong behaviors, selling vehicles, etc., and then set the period of punishment within the applicable range.