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

On June 23, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Southern District Court of the Jeonju on June 23, 2006, a fine of KRW 5 million as the same crime in the same court on July 11, 2014, and a fine of KRW 7 million as the same crime in the same court on December 24, 2014.

On June 2, 2015, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.167% without a driver’s license, driven the B-wing truck from the section of approximately 3 km from the front day of the crypian-gun in the front day of the crypian-gun in the front day of the crypian-gun in the front day of the crypian-gun in the crypian-gun, without a driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( Taking into account the favorable conditions of sentencing among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors are repeatedly taken into account for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., despite the fact that the defendant had been punished three times or more or more due to drinking driving, re-offending the crime. In particular, the fact that the defendant was driving even though his driver's license was revoked due to the previous drinking driving, and that the defendant's blood alcohol content was high at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, all of the crimes of this case are committed by the defendant.