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

1. Around 04:55 on March 13, 2016, the Defendant driven a e-child car with alcohol content of about 0.109% from a section of about 900 meters from the 40-lane to the “D” road located in the same Gu C, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Dong Office, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, to the road of the same Gu.

2. On March 13, 2016, at around 05:20, the Defendant damaged public documents, at the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and around 112, the Defendant: (a) controlled drinking by police officers G belonging to the Seoul Southern Police Station Fast that was dispatched after receiving 112 reports due to drinking driving; (b) prepared a statement on the circumstances of the driver who was a public document, which is a public document; and (c) sought and tear the said documents by putting the said documents into consideration.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged public documents used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Notification of the details of crackdown and the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the circumstances of a damaged driver;

1. Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense; Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of imprisonment with labor);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines for crimes that interfere with the execution of official duties for the reason of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, the standards for the suspension of execution, the fact that the accused has the same criminal history, but is not a criminal record of the suspended