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

On May 20, 2012 and September 1, 2012, each of the fines was imposed by the Defendant in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, but on March 2, 2013, the Defendant driven Calops car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.121% of alcohol level 0.121% while under the influence of alcohol level, without obtaining a driver’s license from the front of a cafeteria in the trade name unfluened cafeteria, which was permanently stationed at around 03:10 on March 2, 2013 to the front of a new 2nd village located at the time of residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on detection of a host driver and a circumstantial statement;

1. Application of the statutes on the register of driver's licenses;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1), subparagraph 1 of Article 152, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the instant motor vehicle has been sold);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (no punishment force shall exist except for two fines stated in the facts of crime);

1. Probation, community service, or order to attend a lecture, Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. (limited to the denial of driving immediately after the case has committed three or more same crimes during the short term);