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

On November 7, 2014, at around 23:34, the Defendant driven a B-purd vehicle from the 2km section to the front road of the Korean Ambassador-Eup, Asan-si, U.S., in a state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.283%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes notifying the results of drinking driving control;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (a point of driving sound);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant drives a motor vehicle in the same drinking condition, even though there are two times of driving skills of the same kind, in light of the fact that the defendant is not liable for the crime. However, the defendant recognizes the facts charged in this case and reflects his mistake, again helps the defendant not to drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, there is no history of punishment heavier than that of the defendant, and other circumstances shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, etc.