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

On August 5, 2015, at around 23:26, the Defendant was present at the Mapo Police Station Traffic Investigation Office located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, at around 00:20 on the following day due to an accident in which the FF vehicle was parked while driving the EM5 vehicle on the front of 106-dong of Mapo-gu Seoul apartment complex. At that point, the Defendant was present at the Mapo Police Station Traffic Investigation Office at around 00:20 on the same day. At that point, there is a reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, sniffing, siffing, and siffing, etc., from G belonging to the above police station, the Defendant

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A H statement;

1. Report on traffic accident, survey report on actual condition, and report on the circumstantial statement of a home-employed driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and photographs of the scene of accident;

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

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 of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the accused has been punished by a fine twice due to drunk driving.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant has mistakenly recognized the defendant, the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment heavier than the fine, and the circumstances of the crime in this case, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and the conditions of the punishment as shown in the records.