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

1. On June 30, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court. On February 11, 2011, the same court received a summary order of KRW 5 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On December 23, 2013, the Changwon District Court received a summary order of KRW 5 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

2. Around 03:08 on May 19, 2019, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a DNA strawing car under the influence of alcohol of about 0.109%, while under the influence of alcohol, from the front of a restaurant in the trade name in the Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu to the front of a restaurant in the same Gu B located approximately 2 kilometers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Control note and on-site photograph;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Statement on the circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Criminal history records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (verification, etc. of the same kind of power), and application of each summary order statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The case of driving a vehicle in a drunken state without a driver's license, even though there are three favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the crime of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act is recognized and erroneous, the occurrence of serious consequences, such as traffic accidents, and there is no record of punishment exceeding fines for the same kind of crime, and the fact that drinking driving is not repeated in a short period, and the defendant has three times the history of criminal punishment due to drinking driving.