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

[criminal power] On April 28, 2008, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on the same day. On November 21, 2008, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court. On September 9, 201, the same court was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million for the same crime.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 26, 2020, around 19:35, the Defendant driven an E Car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.031% from around 2.5km to the road in front of the Defendant’s dwelling place D from the Do in front of the restaurant “C” in the Southern-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant driven the E Car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.5km.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reference materials related to reports on the state of driving under the influence of alcohol, inquiry into the results of the crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol, investigation reports on the state of driver under the influence of alcohol, investigation reports (suspect A’s blood alcohol concentration trend), blood alcohol concentration drilling cliff, and methods of estimating alcohol concentration in blood;

1. On-site photographs of 112 reported case lists;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (reports on attachment of decisions related to drinking power of a suspect), and application of statutes of judgment;

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. 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 under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act committed the instant crime even though the Defendant had been punished for six times prior to the instant crime, due to drinking driving or refusal of drinking alcohol measurement.

However, there are various records and arguments in this case, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledged the crime, the last drunk driving record, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration of this case is low, and the driving distance, control background, age and character, family relation, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.