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

On October 6, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.209% of blood alcohol concentration around 14:35 on October 6, 2015, and was driving B car at approximately 10km from the front day of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Medito Hospital to Kimpo-si Kimpo-ro, Kimpo-ro, Kimpo-ro to the roads adjacent to the new IrgeIC.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Apr. 2, 2009);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the same shall apply to reasons for discretionary mitigation);

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code to the effect that he/she was in a state of mental disorder because he/she was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of

According to the records, although the defendant's drinking at the time of the above crime is recognized, it cannot be seen that the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions has been weak or lost. Thus, the defendant's assertion is rejected.