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

Since the defendant is led to confession, it is necessary to make an additional statement on the same part as the relevant supporting evidence in the same way as “(see, e.g., the page of the evidence record).”

Based on evidence, the prosecutor's facts charged are modified to the extent that it does not adversely affect the defendant's right of defense and actually affect the contents of the facts charged, and it does not result in the change of the subject of trial by the court.

On June 13, 2014, the Defendant issued and confirmed a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Chuncheon District Court on June 13, 2014 (see, e.g., the evidence record). ② On September 28, 2016 (See, e.g., the evidence record No. 29), the court at the same time issued a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 as the same crime.

Criminal facts

On June 11, 2020, the Defendant driven EEX cars over approximately 2 km from the place where the “Sacheon B apartment” was under the influence of alcohol 0.188% (see, e.g., record No. 6) around 04:20, and from the place where the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 0.18% (see, e.g., evidence record) to the front road of the Chuncheon City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal history records, investigation reports (a copy of the summary order, such as the previous one) and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, 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 reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. are as follows: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime even if he had the aforementioned two times’ penal power; and (b) the drinking water level of this case is relatively high; and (c) the responsibility of the Defendant is heavy.

However, the defendant exceeds a fine.