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

The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.276%, and around March 7, 2014, at around 03:10, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle B in the section B of approximately 100 meters from the “same horse” parking lot located in the Priju, Priju, Priju, Priju, Priju, Priju, Priju to the 62-22nd day of the Priju, Priju.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written reports on running a driver;

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

2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is the sentencing factor unfavorable to the defendant in terms of the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to a fine for drinking driving once in the past, and the fact that drinking driving is dangerous to cause serious human and physical harm, etc.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and opposed to it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.