The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The judgment below is not included in the records of violation of Article 44(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, even though the records of the suspension of indictment (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) are included in the records of violation at least twice of Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

Based on the judgment, the court acquitted the defendant on the reason for the violation of Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts and the recognition of the past records of violation at least twice Article 44 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the same Act.

The sentence of the lower court (an amount of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

The lower court determined on the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The lower court found the Defendant guilty solely on the grounds of the violation of Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act with respect to the amount of alcohol concentration among blood alcohol 0.161%, on the ground that the history of the disposition of suspension of indictment is not proved by the court’s substantive deliberation and determination, and thus, it does not constitute the history of a violation of drinking under Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, it does not constitute the history of a violation of Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act.

Whether “Suspension of indictment” can be included in the records of the violation of Article 148-2(1)1-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act, under the following circumstances: (i) or (v) the records of the violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions, the records of the suspension of indictment can also be included in the records of the violation of Article 148-2(1)1-2(a) of the Road Traffic Act, where the records of the suspension of indictment are proven without reasonable doubt.

First, with respect to the grammatic interpretation of Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “the instant provision”), “violations” is defined as “a person who violates Article 44(1) not less than twice” in the ordinary Korean language, but not in compliance with laws, orders, and commitments.”

The text of the instant provision is to drive drinking at least twice.