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

On May 23, 2011, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court's Mapo Branch's branch on May 23, 201, the summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on April 26, 2010, and the summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a fine on October 19, 2006 for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking).

On January 11, 2014, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.182% of blood alcohol concentration, driven B strawing car from approximately 200 meters to the solar oil station front of the YYA, which was located in the YEM, to the solar oil station located in the YEM.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. The current status of use of sobling measuring instruments;

1. A inquiry report, such as criminal records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the latest previous records of a suspect and judgment, etc.);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “The reason for sentencing”) of the suspended sentence is to recognize and reflect a defendant’s mistake, to the effect that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine due to drunk driving, to the extent that the defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc. are mitigated to reduce the sentence against the defendant and suspend the enforcement thereof.