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.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol on December 23, 2012, drives a motor device bicycle (an issuance of a summary order of KRW 3 million at the source of the water source method on April 10, 2013), driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on November 23, 2016 (an issuance of a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the source of the water source method on December 16, 2016), and violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions.

On October 19, 2018, at around 23:50, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with alcohol content of approximately 0.076% in blood while under the influence of alcohol level 0.076% in approximately 2km from the street in front of the wave market in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si to the street 133-gil 26-hon.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition on driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and of each summary order;

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

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 crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is deemed to have been driven again by the Defendant, who had been able to drive alcohol more than twice, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, but not less than three years since the Defendant was found to have been driving under the influence of alcohol in November 2016, and there is a lot of possibility of criticism for the Defendant again driving under the influence of alcohol in this case.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, that the amount of alcohol concentration in blood due to the drinking of this case is not very high, and that the defendant has been punished more than a suspended sentence until now.