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

On August 13, 2007, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Incheon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 4 million by the Incheon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act on December 31, 2010.

On August 1, 2019, at around 00:0, the Defendant driven CM7 vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.182% from the upper right line in the middle line in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon to the same day from around 01:20 on the same day to the front line in the same Gu B.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, repeated statements, investigation reports, and statutes;

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 main sentence of Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Probation Act, as stated in the judgment of the defendant, committed a second offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and committed a second offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2009, and the second offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act was also punished once in 209, and the second offense of drinking alcohol of this case is high.

In light of this, the responsibility of the defendant is not easy.

However, the defendant's mistake is now divided in depth.

The defendant supports two children of wife and her children, the wife was diagnosed as a brain-dead person with disabilities recently, and the child also has a good health condition.

In full view of the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as above.