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

On September 21, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on September 21, 2006, and was sentenced to a summary order of one million won for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on October 9, 2012 and violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On December 27, 2013, from the Do in which it is impossible to know the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mandong on the same day, the Defendant driven a Bknife vehicle with a blood alcohol content of about 0.216% under the influence of alcohol from the 7km section of approximately 7km to the road in front of 490-8, Jung-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Written consent to blood collection and written confirmation of blood collection;

1. The written request for appraisal (the blood alcohol appraisal report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on detection of a host driver;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Reasons for discretionary mitigation);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a vehicle is that the defendant driven the vehicle at the high drinking level of 0.216% even though he had the record of being punished twice due to drinking driving. However, there is no record of suspended execution or more, the defendant seems to have committed a traffic accident other than drinking driving, the defendant's wife does not proceed to a traffic accident other than drinking driving, and the defendant's wife desires to take the defendant's wife against the defendant, and other circumstances shown in the arguments in this case including the defendant's age, family relation, personality and behavior, environment, history, motive for the crime in this case, circumstances leading to the crime in this case, and circumstances after the crime.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.