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

On February 8, 2018, the Defendant driven D Rab in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.222% from the 2km section of approximately 2km to the 7rd road of Gangseo-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 8, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the result of regulating drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a letter of consent to and confirmation of collection of blood, a letter of response to a request for appraisal, and a report on detection of drivers;

1. Article 148-2 (2) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (referring to driving under influence of alcohol) applicable to the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment for imprisonment, and the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act was the act of having a high risk of driving the instant alcohol in the condition of taking the alcohol concentration of the Defendant’s blood, and in fact, the driver of another vehicle and the driver of the vehicle are punished for operating the vehicle on the road. In light of the fact that the vehicle’s report by the other party’s driver led to the crackdown on drinking, it can be inferred that the other party’s vehicle was in actual dangerous condition.

The defendant has already been punished for a fine due to driving of drinking and refusing to measure drinking, and thus, no more than a fine shall be punished effectively, and the defendant will choose to imprisonment simultaneously with prison labor.

However, there are circumstances such as the following: the Defendant appears to have been attending the hospital after the instant case and receiving counseling and treatment for alcohol addiction; the alcohol consultation center program appears to be participating in the program; the occurrence of traffic accidents caused by driving of the instant drinking; the Defendant’s intent to exclude the Defendant from the list of the insured of the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance for the vehicle driving of the instant case; and the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected.