except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Violation of the Composition Requirements] On June 26, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2,000,000 from the Seoul East Eastern District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and fine of KRW 1,00,000 for the same crime in the same court on March 26, 2010.

[Fact that constitutes a crime] On September 18, 2012, the Defendant was under the influence of 00:30% of blood alcohol level around 00:116% on the roads 199-1 in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, driving a Category C motor vehicle at approximately 3km of approximately 3km from the roads 460-23 in Seongdong-gu, Gangdong-gu.

Summary of Evidence / [The Facts constituting a crime]

1. Defendant’s partial statement

1. A witness D legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of suspect;

1. Report on the statement on the status of the driver, request for appraisal, response to examination of suspect himself/herself (Violation of the requirements for composition);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal records, etc.;

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

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (main grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (main grounds for the suspended sentence)

1. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time as stated in the facts charged at the time of the charge and the difference between the Defendant’s drinking volume, the time from the drinking time to the time of alcohol measurement, and the blood alcohol concentration measured by the respiratory examination method, and the blood alcohol concentration measured by the blood collection method, there is insufficient proof that the Defendant’

2. The evidence indicated in the summary of the judgment, the report on detection of the driver from the driver who is an impeachment evidence (in addition to blood collection), and the following circumstances acknowledged by the investigation report (the result of the blood collection examination), namely, the 0.116% of the blood alcohol concentration measured by the method of blood collection, compared to 0.065% of the blood alcohol concentration measured by the pulmonary examination method (i.e., 0., 0.16/065) or the injury.