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

On January 6, 2017, at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and the summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime in the same court on August 31, 2018, respectively.

On October 31, 2019, at around 16:30, the Defendant driven a C Poter-II truck without obtaining a driving license in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 40km from a section of about 40km to a point where 0.109% of alcohol content is 0.109 meters away from the front road of the Hong-gun Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

As a result, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act prohibition regulations at least twice, and at the same time, operated the above cargo without obtaining the driver's license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of each relevant summary order attached thereto;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment prescribed for a violation of each Road Traffic Act at the time of marketing and the punishment heavier than that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime in spite of the past record of drinking driving, etc., which had been punished twice or more due to drinking, etc., and the quality of the instant crime is not good.

On the other hand, however, the defendant's mistake is recognized, and the defendant has a relatively minor penalty due to a drunk driving.