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

On April 26, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Seoggu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court on April 26, 201, and on May 4, 201, a summary order of KRW 1 million for the same crime in the same court on May 4, 201, and on June 1, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime in the same court.

On July 16, 2013, at around 21:35, the Defendant, at around 200 meters from the house of the Republic of Korea, C, located in Seongbuk-gun B, to the front road of the National Museum of the Republic of Korea in the same Ri, did not obtain a driver's license, and driving a DNA 1 ton of the dpoter under the influence of alcohol content of 0.14%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking and driving, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, written judgments, 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 for ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant was punished three times for drunk driving in the past and one time forless driving in the past, in light of the fact that he was under a license without permission, and the purpose of the revision of the Road Traffic Act that strengthened the punishment for drunk driving, it is necessary to punish the defendant.

However, there are other arguments in this case, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects in depth, the age, family relationship, health status, personality and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime.