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

1. On October 31, 201, the Defendant is a person who was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million by a fine of KRW 1.5 million by means of a violation of the Road Traffic Act in order to obtain a high level of support from the Government District Court on the Republic of Korea on October 31, 201, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million by the same court on June 22, 2012.

As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

At around 04:55 on September 3, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.081%, and around 05:00 on September 3, 2014, the Defendant driven a B Tdra XG car at the section of approximately 8 km from the front of any drinking house in the vicinity of the scenic plaza located in the Dong-dong-dong, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Goyang-si.

2. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act: (a) operated a passenger car as set forth in paragraph (1) that is not covered by mandatory insurance on the front of a flag-in electric car, underground car, as set forth in the same letter at the time of Pakistan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Inquirying the results of the control of drinking driving, and mandatory insurance;

3. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, repeated statements, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting criminal investigations;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

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

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

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

5. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of punishment for drinking driving in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage by causing large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, is an element for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all the charges of this case and reflects them shall be sentenced in favor of the defendant.