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

On November 1, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court, and on December 26, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of fine of five million won for the same crime in the same court.

On 06:05 on 23, 2014, the Defendant driven a vehicle B benE350 without obtaining a driver’s license in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.165% in the 3km section from the front of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 231 to the front of 231, as prescribed in the same Gu Ordinance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Investigation report (application of the Tramark Official Form);

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, investigation reports (former records and summary orders) and 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 of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Reasons for discretionary mitigation);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime threatening not only to himself but also to a large number of unspecified people's lives and property. The criminal defendant has been punished twice since drinking driving since 2006, and the corresponding punishment is inevitable because he/she drives a vehicle in a high drinking state of 0.165% even though he/she was punished twice since drinking driving since 2006. However, the criminal defendant seems to be against his/her own mistake, the criminal defendant is not going back to a traffic accident other than drinking driving, and the criminal defendant exceeds the fine until the crime of this case.