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

On December 29, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 as a fine for the same crime from the Daejeon District Court on March 7, 2016, respectively.

At around 22:20 on August 25, 2019, the Defendant driven a DNA camping vehicle from the front Do of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, to the front Do of the Handong-dong, Seodong-gu, Daejeon-gu, from around 5km-do, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.091% of blood alcohol level.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving, and report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and summary order-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty, 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. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires the punishment corresponding to the crimes that may cause serious damage to the life, body and property of others.

In 2010 and 2016, the Defendant, even though he was sentenced to a fine twice due to drinking driving, once again, was found to have driven under the influence of drinking, and again committed a relatively short period of time.

However, the defendant seems to have been under the influence of drinking because he did not have a currency after having attempted to drive on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant recognizes his wrong and reflects his wrong.

It seems to be to not repeat the crime, such as selling vehicles.

There is no history of punishment exceeding a fine.

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime.