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

On November 14, 2006, the Defendant committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) by the Incheon District Court on November 14, 2006, and was punished by a fine of KRW 2.5 million on December 12, 2007 with the same crime, etc. from the Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court on December 12, 2007, and was driving under drinking more than twice.

On December 15, 2017, at around 22:50, the Defendant driven a B SP car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.223% from approximately 500 meters to the front road of the 743-way road located in the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Operation Dong, Incheon Gyeyang-gu Operation Zone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and the statement in the circumstances of the driver;

1. Response to a request for appraisal, or a report on the detection of a primary driver (A);

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. A previous conviction in judgment: A response to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A), report on investigation (Attachment to a copy, etc. of a summary order against a suspect), application of a summary order under statutes;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant has a past record of six criminal punishment, and the criminal record due to drinking driving has reached four times.

Nevertheless, the Defendant once driving alcohol again and committing the instant crime, and thus, cannot be assessed against the Defendant’s liability for such crime.

In consideration of the fact that the Defendant's drinking values are measured by blood collection, the Defendant's drinking values have reached a very dangerous level, and even if the results of the respiratory measurement are limited, the drinking volume was significant.

The drinking volume in the previous case according to the previous judgment is also grave.