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

1. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million to a fine of KRW 1.5 million at the Seoul Southern District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 4 million to a fine of KRW 1.5 million at the same court on October 13, 2015.

2. Around 02:45 on June 10, 2016, the Defendant driven a D rocketing car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.291% without a driver’s license on the section of about 5 km from the road located in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu to the road located in 78-10, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant, even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving, was again driving and driving without a license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. On-going reports, details of crackdowns, and results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Records of ruling: Application of criminal history records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports (attached to the same type of criminal records and summary orders);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on any violation of the Road Traffic Act of which the punishment at the time of sale is heavier shall be punished);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order and the lecture order are repeated drinking during a short period of time, and the blood alcohol concentration of this case is very high to 0.291%, it is necessary to severely punish the defendant.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided and again the defendant is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol, there is no other criminal force than the records of drinking under the judgment, and the driving under the influence of alcohol from the beginning.