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

On October 22, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of one million won or more for a violation of road traffic law in the Changwon District Court’s smuggling support on November 1, 2007, and the said order became final and conclusive on November 1, 2007. On January 28, 2010, upon receipt of a summary order of a fine of two million won or more for the same offense in the same court, etc., the above order became final and conclusive on February 10, 2010. On May 30, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of four million won or more for the same offense by the same court, etc., and the said order became final and conclusive on June 22, 2012.

On December 10, 2015, the Defendant driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.132% while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.132%, without obtaining a driver’s license, from the Do near the Dor where the Gae Fire Station of the Gaebbb, which is in the Gaebbb, at around 21:30, to the road near the Sejong Hospital located in the same Dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (verification of past punishment of the same kind);

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

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Considering the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime again even though he/she had the same criminal record at several times, strict punishment against the defendant is needed for the observation of protection and the order of community service, and the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act.

However, the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., that the defendant is divided, that there is no criminal conviction more than a fine against the defendant, that the defendant is also sentenced to protection, observation and community service order along with the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and that the defendant is also sentenced.