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

On May 30, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving) in the leisure support of a water source method source on May 30, 2012 and KRW 2 million for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving) in the same court on February 9, 2015.

The Defendant stated in the written indictment around 06:05 on March 9, 2016 as “07:21” but it is apparent that it is a clerical error, and even if it is corrected without changing the written indictment, it does not seem to cause substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense. Accordingly, it shall be corrected ex officio as above.

Without a driver's license, while under the influence of alcohol level 0.131% in blood, a car was operated from the front side of the Dong-dong University of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the Gongsan-dong public morals, Mapo-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a written inquiry, such as criminal history, and of each summary order;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under the Criminal Act: The defendant committed the instant crime at the same time despite the fact that he/she had been punished twice by a fine due to drinking driving, once a fine due to a non-license driving, and once a fine due to an escape vehicle, etc., even though he/she had been punished, and the circumstances favorable to the significant degree of alcohol concentration in blood at the time of the instant crime: The defendant recognized, reflected, and again, he/she would not drive drinking or non-license.

(2) Meishing damage.