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.

[criminal history] On October 31, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Chuncheon District Court on April 6, 201.

[2] On April 22, 2018, the Defendant driven a B-learning car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.180% from the Do in front of the Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-ro, Hongcheon-ro, Hongcheon-ro, Hongcheon-ro, to about 3-2, the accounting of the North west-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.180%.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, was driving again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report on actual condition, notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving, and a statement on the circumstances of the driver who takes the driving of alcoholic beverages (the net six times);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (verification of suspect drinking skills);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was punished for driving alcohol in 2007 and 2011 (the crime committed in 2010) as stated in its reasoning; (b) the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime was higher than 0.180%; and (c) the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the previous crime was higher than 0.197% and 0.140% higher than the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the previous crime, etc. are deemed to be the factors for sentencing that are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant seems to have recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than the suspension of qualification for the same kind of crime or traffic crime, etc. is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.