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

On May 7, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1500,000,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and 2.5 million won as a fine in the same court on March 26, 2009 with the same crime, etc., respectively, at the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court.

On May 4, 2020, at around 23:30, the Defendant driven an Epoter cargo vehicle without obtaining a driver's license from the K Center near the Bri-si, Chungcheongnam-si to D in the same city from around 200 meters to the front of D in the same city, while under the influence of alcohol of about 0.102%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of each relevant summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment prescribed for a violation of each Road Traffic Act at the time of marketing and the punishment heavier than that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order of Education and the Order of Community Service is that the Defendant, even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving in the past, was driving under the influence of drinking without a license again, the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized, the defendant has no record of being sentenced to more severe punishment than a fine due to drinking driving, and the past drinking power is past.