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

On December 5, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Seoul Southern District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Incheon Southern District Court to the same crime on November 5, 2010.

On August 19, 2012, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.250% of blood alcohol concentration on August 23:13, 2012, and the Defendant driven Cunst-free car from the front of a cafeteria located in the new-ro of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to approximately 1 km from the front of the cafeteria at the new-ro of Yeongdeungpo-gu to the 145 front road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. A criminal investigation report (a manual for control);

1. Requests for appraisal;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [the scope of applicable sentences] 6 months to 1 year and 6 months (the decision of sentence ] is highly likely to criticize the Defendant in that the Defendant again committed the same kind of crime despite having the record of having been punished twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (the act of running a driving a motor vehicle). The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was very high to 0.250%. In the event a person who has been punished for driving a motor vehicle twice or more, once again drives a motor vehicle, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the purpose of the revision of the Road Traffic Act, which is to punish him/her by raising the statutory penalty.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the crime of this case, the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution or more, and the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime of this case.