On December 18, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seocho Branch of the Chuncheon District Court on December 18, 2006, and on October 8, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Seocho Branch of the Chuncheon District Court on October 8, 2009. On October 10, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a fine of KRW 1 million in the Seocho Branch of the Chuncheon District Court.

Criminal facts

On October 25, 2013, at around 01:35, the Defendant, who had been punished twice or more due to drinking driving, driven a cubic car without obtaining a driver’s license at the 1km section of approximately 0.186% under the influence of alcohol, from the front side of the first apartment of the Seoul Metropolitan Name 1, which is located in the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, Seoul, to the front side of the “Seoul Radiation Department” located in the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, 01:43 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver and a statement in the circumstances of the host driver;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports (A), two copies of summary order, application of seven copies of judgment, and application of seven copies of judgment;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (C) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the record of several times of criminal punishment including suspended sentence and imprisonment for the same kind of crime. At the time of the instant crime, when considering the fact that the defendant was issued a summary order due to drunk driving, and that the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is considerable, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant’s sentence.

However, the defendant led to the crime of this case, and at the time of the crime.