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

On June 23, 2013, at around 22:40, the Defendant driven C Kaba car with alcohol concentration of 0.220% from the front day of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu to the front day of the Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu Office to the front day of the same Eup/Myeon in front of the water level

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger of use of a drinking instruments, such as a report on detection of a drinking driver, a report on the status of a drinking driver;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (2) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is for the defendant to be a bona fide trial, such as hiding the whereabouts of the defendant during the trial of this case, but it is against his wrongness through a prison life remaining in the month following the arrest of the defendant later, and all the facts of the crime are being committed. The case is merely a simple drinking driving around 2007, taking into account the fact that there is no same criminal record after the defendant was punished for driving under the same influence as this case, the sentence like the order is determined and the execution of the sentence is suspended.