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

On July 13, 2013, the Defendant was requested to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol in a manner of breathing it into a drinking measuring instrument, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she was under the influence of alcohol, such as a state of walking from a slope of D District Zone E in the budget police station, while driving a Chool car owned by the Defendant in front of the budget station located in the Chungcheongnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-do, the Defendant did not comply with it without justifiable grounds, even though he/she was requested to comply with the drinking test by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the hostile inquiry;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Circumstances in which the following reasons for sentencing are described):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( repeatedly considering factors, etc. describing the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and lecture attendance order is that the Defendant already committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished by a fine, suspension of execution and imprisonment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act for the same kind of drinking-free license over several occasions, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime because it has not been punished as a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2013.

On the other hand, however, the defendant is trying not to drive a motor vehicle again while selling the motor vehicle, and the defendant's wife wanting to take the defendant's wife, and the defendant appears to be against the defendant while making a confession of the crime of this case.