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

On August 11, 2015, at around 18:55, the Defendant driven a Cststststun Do vehicle that did not purchase mandatory insurance in the state of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.256% from the area of approximately 50 meters from the 50-meter radius front to the front of the B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Written consent to blood collection;

1. Requests for appraisal of blood alcohol concentration and appraisal;

1. A written request for appraisal, a written report on request for appraisal, and a written appraisal of blood alcohol concentration;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to medical insurance, inquiry and inquiry;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (2) 1, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 46 (2) 2 and 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment determined for a violation of the Road Traffic Act with heavier punishment);

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. operate a vehicle without mandatory insurance in drinking condition even though the defendant had been punished several times due to drinking driving. The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime of this case was very high, and the defendant reflects his criminal act, and other all the sentencing factors of this case including the defendant's age, family relationship, environment, and circumstances after the crime shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of all the above sentencing factors.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving Cununst vehicle.

At around 18:55 on August 11, 2015, the Defendant driven a bit-road vehicle at the same time, and led the side road to run approximately 20km from the surface of the forest seafarer to the surface of the plant source.