[criminal power] On April 7, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at an Ansan District Court’s Ansan Branch on May 14, 2015, a fine of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the same court on May 14, 2015, and a fine of KRW 5 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Suwon District Court on March 16, 2016, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 5 million for one year at the Suwon District Court on November 14, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 14, 2020, at around 22:15, the Defendant driven an EM5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.091% without obtaining a driving license from around 500 meters from the front of the C restaurant located in Suwon-si D apartment in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to the front of the D apartment in Suwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement, investigation report, and driver’s license register to notify the results of the regulation of drunk driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, summary orders, and application of statutes;

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. Selection of an alternative imprisonment with prison labor under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has reached four times the criminal history of the Defendant, which was subject to criminal punishment due to drunk driving since 2010, and finally, the Defendant committed the instant crime of drunk driving in the status of licenseless driving only five months even though he/she was subject to a suspended sentence on November 2019.

Even in light of the driving circumstances alleged by the defendant, it is impossible to pay attention to the fact that the drinking volume was reasonable at the time and the citizens were suffering from damage.