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

On August 2, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol leveling to 0.05% or more among the blood alcohol level, the Defendant driven a bwing-in freight vehicle at approximately 8km from around 19:20 meters to the front road of the ginseng company of the same city as the 16-km-in ginseng near the dry field, which was located in a white field at the permanent residence, from around 0.05%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver and a report on the circumstances of the primary driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the application of the aforementioned dmark formula and drinking after accidents);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is not only that the Defendant was driving the instant drinking, but also that the Defendant asserts that he was drinking again after leaving the scene of the crime to avoid accurate measurements of drinking after the crime of this case.

However, in consideration of the absence of criminal records exceeding fines, a suspended sentence shall be sentenced, and community service work shall be attached, and a judgment shall be sentenced as ordered.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was not less than 0.1% at the time of the crime.

Comprehensively taking account of each evidence in the judgment, the Defendant conflicts with the vehicle driven by C while driving the vehicle at the location indicated in the judgment after drinking around 19:00 on the day of the crime in question. On the day of the occurrence of the above accident, the Defendant was found to have been 0.179% at the time of drinking measurement to the Defendant at around 19:47 on the same day, and the Defendant argued that the Defendant was drank one soldier at the house immediately after the accident in the course of investigation, and that the Defendant was drank one soldier at the house after the accident in the investigation report (the application of the above dmark formula, and drinking after the accident).