However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 24, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 from the Daegu District Court to a fine of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on April 6, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 5 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seog branch court of the Daegu District Court.

Although the Defendant violated the provision prohibiting driving of alcohol twice on September 30, 2017, the Defendant driven a C truck at a distance of about 5 km from the Seogu Seo-gu to the Seogu Seogu Seo-gu lue-gu lue-ri, in a state of under the influence of alcohol level of 0.082% in blood while under the influence of around 09:20 on September 30, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding reports on drivers of drinking alcohol and inquiry into the results of regulating drinking alcohol driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of written inquiries about criminal history and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 152 (1) and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is for the defendant to be strictly punished when considering the fact that he/she again renders drinking of this case and without a license even though he/she was punished twice due to drinking alcohol driving (the fine before the judgment), etc.

However, in full view of all circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects, and the defendant appears to have been exposed to the drinking control due to the night drinking of the preceding day of this case, and there are no other criminal records except the previous convictions, the receipt of drinking, and the circumstances of the crime, the decision is made as ordered.