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

On September 4, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for the commission of a violation of the Road Traffic Act in Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong site, and on January 9, 2012, issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for the same crime from the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon Branch Branch, and on March 5, 2012, issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime from the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon Branch Branch Branch, and on April 15, 2014, issued a summary order of KRW 7,00,000 as a fine for the same crime.

On December 6, 2019, at around 00:49, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by driving a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by 0.049% at approximately 50 meters from the front of a cafeteria located in the two-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu to the front of B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (related to the same kind of suspect's power), related summary orders, and application of one copy of judgment, respectively;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years;

2. Not applying the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not yet prepared for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act;

3. The decision-making driving of the sentence is not only abrupt of himself but also a crime in which the life of an unbrush person can be taken, and the risk of such a crime is high.

The Defendant, like the records in the judgment, is punished by drinking driving on a multiple occasions, but the Defendant again runs a drinking-water and has a heavy responsibility for such crime.

However, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.