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

On May 19, 2015, at around 21:50, the Defendant driven a 200-hour C Ah-purd vehicle from the day before a restaurant, which is not aware of the trade name in the Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, to the day before a public restaurant in the same city, in the state of alcohol concentration of 0.135%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the results of the control of drinking driving, the report on the situation of drinking driving, and the statement on the state of drinking drivers;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime of the same kind despite the fact that he/she had been sentenced two times within the last ten years due to the instant crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration level at the time of driving of the instant case is very high, etc. is the reason for the unfavorable sentencing against the Defendant.

However, the sentence like the order is imposed in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided and again is expected not to commit the same kind of crime, the fact that he/she should support his/her parents, the fact that he/she has to be punished more than a suspended sentence, the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished more than a suspended sentence, and other conditions of sentencing stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and result of