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

On September 15, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million with a fine of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and KRW 4 million with the same support on November 25, 2014.

On April 9, 2015, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver's license on April 18:3, 2015, driven B K7 cars at the section of about 15 km from the Do in front of the building in Ischeon-si Ho-si, 0.191% of alcohol concentration, to the front road of the Jin apartment located in 2212, as the Do in front of the building in the Dongcheon-si, Seocheon-si.

Accordingly, the defendant, who was subject to criminal punishment for drunk driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and the situation of driving under the influence of alcohol;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. A driver's license inquiry;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment to the summary order of the same kind of electricity);

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 driving sound), subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

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. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though there was a past record of two times of punishment due to the same kind of force, it should be sentenced to strict punishment in light of the fact that the instant crime was committed again.

However, the punishment was determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant confessions and reflects the crime, and the fact that the defendant has no record of the same crime except the above two times of power.