On June 30, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Eastern District Court on September 19, 2006, a fine of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the branch court of the Suwon District Court on September 19, 2006, and on April 6, 201, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence on January 20, 201.

At around 18:10 on October 15, 2013, the Defendant driven a BE car at approximately 700 meters from the front day of the “Tisung Emar”, which is located in the Gamong-gun Sastal Sastal Sastal of Gyeonggi-si, to the front day of the “Sastal Mastal” located in the Gamastal Pastal Pastal of Gyeonggi-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history records and other inquiries, investigation reports (verification of criminal records and date of release from prison), 2010 highest 3510, 3967 (combined), court rulings 201 highest 623 (Consolidated), summary orders 2006 highest 11272, summary orders 2006 high-level 33333, application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the status of confinement and confinement of each individual;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes (as such, there exists a criminal record of a violation of the Road Traffic Act on April 6, 2011)

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (such as the fact that the defendant is against himself or herself, and the fact that he or she is said not to repeat the vehicle by scraping the vehicle) is insignificant. However, the degree of blood alcohol concentration is relatively high, and the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated offense by being sentenced to a punishment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as stated in the judgment of the court, and committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated offense as stated in the judgment of the court. In addition to the punishment before the judgment, there are records of past punishment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).