A. On August 27, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Cheongju District Court on the ground of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking), six months in imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Cheongju District Court on June 14, 2013, and ten months in imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting) at the Cheongju District Court on the ground of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting) at the Cheongju District Court on April 10, 2015.

On July 18, 2017, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with E low-paid E-car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.307% in blood on the front side of D, which is located in Heung-gu, Soak-gu, Hoju on July 2017.

B. A person violating the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation for Loss (Non- mandatory insurance) should not operate a motor vehicle on the road that is not covered by mandatory insurance, but the Defendant operated a motor vehicle with E low ty-car, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same time and at the same place as the foregoing paragraph (A).

Summary of Evidence

The defendant's legal statement alcohol driving control report, alcohol appraisal report among the blood report of the main driver's circumstantial statement, and previous records of the ruling of mandatory insurance: The application of the inquiry letter, summary order, personal confinement status, etc.

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (1) 1, 44 (1) (in cases of drinking alcohol) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 46 (2) 2 and 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, and selection of imprisonment with labor;

2. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

3. While the Defendant’s erroneous reasoning for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 subparag. 1 subparag. 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes reflects the Defendant’s wrongness, the Defendant again commits a repeated crime due to drinking driving, even though he/she was a repeated offense period.

The sentence shall be determined in consideration of drinking volume, criminal records, ages, sexual behaviors, environment, etc. of the defendant.