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.

On July 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on July 1, 201, and on January 7, 2014, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime and violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On June 21, 2018, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.107% among blood transfusions, the Defendant driven B C-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and the statement in the circumstances of the driver;

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal history and investigation reports (Attachment of a summary order);

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Execution (the fact that one’s mistake is against his own mistake, the fact that there is no record of a crime exceeding a fine (two times of a fine related to the violation of Road Traffic Act (dacting driving) as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the