[criminal power] On December 18, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seocho District Court’s Seocho Branch on the ground of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Auskcheon District Court”). On March 5, 2010, the Defendant completed the enforcement on Seongdong-gu District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On November 2, 2010, around 08:30 on November 2, 2010, the Defendant driven a ecoos car in C in the section of about 3 km without obtaining a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.09% in front of the sea park No. 7 in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the criminal place, investigation report (report on the situation of driving without a license), inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, each investigation report (general) and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by inquiry and inquiry;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) The point of drinking: Subparagraph 1 of Article 148-2 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010; Act No. 10382);

B. Unlicensed driving: Subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010; Act No. 10382)

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. The reason for sentencing the alternative sentence of imprisonment without prison labor is that the defendant not only has a large number of same kind of power, including the criminal records as indicated in the judgment of the defendant, but also has a repeated crime period but also leads to drinking and driving without obtaining a license.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake in depth, the fact that the mother who the defendant suffers from salutism and the salutic patient suffering from salutism should be frightened, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account the above circumstances such as the Defendant’s age and character and conduct.