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

At around 23:40 on August 8, 2013, the Defendant driven B’s “mast” car while under the influence of alcohol 0.221% at a distance equivalent to approximately 500 meters from the distance of approximately 500 meters to the “Seoul National Agricultural Cooperative, Agricultural and Rural Community” located in Asan Ri of the same Eup from 54-18, South-Namn-gun, South-Namn-gun, South-Namn-gunn-gunn-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting the circumstances of running a driving house;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (including a suspended sentence as a result of refusal to measure drinking around 2010) (including a case where there are several records of records of punishment for a drunk driving, and a serious punishment is required due to a very high degree of blood alcohol concentration; however, considering the circumstances, such as confession, confession, and pening a mistake);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution ( repeatedly considering the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;