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

[criminal power] On April 8, 201, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 6 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking Water) at the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on April 8, 201, and the same year.

6. On July 17, 2014, the Seoul Northern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million with the same offense, and on July 10, 2014, the Suwon District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million with the same offense.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 14, 2016, at around 01:53, the Defendant driven a DNA-based car with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.100% without obtaining a driver's license in a section of about 200 meters from the front of the GS convenience store located in 45-ro 13-gil-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seongbuk-gu to the front distance of the American Elementary School.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of driving without a license, report on the state of standing for driving without a license, and on-site photographs;

1. Report on proper launch of a driver, report on the status of a driver, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Investigation report by telephone;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (report on confirmation of the same kind of power) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, including the fact that there is no criminal conviction or heavier than the suspension of execution, and the circumstances of driving of this case, etc. of this case, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the act of driving this case by the defendant in this case constitutes an emergency evacuation, since the defendant refused to drive a vehicle on the grounds that the defendant cannot speak at the destination, while a substitute driver driving a vehicle on the road while driving the vehicle of this case, and drive a vehicle in order to

Doctrine, each of the above evidence and witness.