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

1. Around 16:19 on December 17, 2012, the Defendant driving a driver’s license violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) at a section of approximately 1km from the site of the construction of a church in which the name located in the Solsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, is unknown to the third underground car located in the Nam-gu, Ulsan-do without a motorcycle’s license.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement of drinking level) requires the Defendant to respond to a request for a measurement of drinking level conducted by a police officer without justifiable grounds, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling from the slope E belonging to the Ulsannam Police Station D District Unit of the Ulsannam Police Station, which was called after receiving 112 reports from the emergency department of C Hospital located in the south-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City and sent after receiving the said 30 minutes of drinking level, while driving as provided in paragraph (1) of this Article.

3. The Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act: (a) drive an automobile otobs under Paragraph (1) that was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same date and place as Paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written reports on running a driver;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 2, Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 46 (2) 2, and Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (in conflict with each other, taking into account the fact that the defendant is about the accident in this case);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is as follows.