On April 25, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment due to a violation of road traffic law (drinking) in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on April 25, 2008. On August 19, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking) in the same court. On August 23, 2013, the same court was sentenced to a fine of eight million won as the same crime. On August 7, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime and completed the execution of the said sentence on May 5, 2015.

피고인은 2016. 2. 27. 14:40 경 고양 시 덕양구 관산동에서부터 같은 구 고양동 벧 엘 교회 앞 길까지 약 200m 구간에서 자동차 운전면허를 받지 아니하고 혈 중 알코올 농도 0.098% 의 술에 취한 상태로 C 그 랜 져 XG 승용차를 운전하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of regulating driving of drinking, reporting on the circumstances of driving of drinking, and the driver's license register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to refer to inquiries, such as criminal history, and investigation reports (report attached to such previous decisions);

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

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is that: (a) the criminal history of traffic punishment (nine times a drinking driving and ten times a non-license driving) over several times; and (b) even though there have been a history of serving several times of punishment due to drinking driving, etc., the same crime should be punished in light of the fact that the same crime has been repeated during the period of repeated crimes.

However, the fact that the defendant shows a misunderstanding, and the alcohol value of this case is very high.

It is difficult to see that there is no accident, especially favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, occupation and career, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, contents of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.