However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 21, 2011, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on March 21, 201, and on February 17, 2016, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on February 17, 201 and has experience of being punished twice or more for drinking driving.

On March 15, 2018, at around 23:01, the Defendant driven a Cpote car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.148% while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license from around 15km-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul to the 32nd roads, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-ro.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving without a license, report on the situations of driving with a driving without a license, report on the circumstances of a driver with a driving without a license, and inquiry into the results of regulating drinking and the register of drivers;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the previous and the summary order of drinking power), and summary order;

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. In a case where a defendant had been sentenced twice to a fine for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the order to provide community service and attend lectures, and in particular, two years have not passed since he/she was punished for driving under the same drinking, and thus, he/she is deemed to have driven under the influence of drinking together with a non-licenseing driving. The defendant has the habit of driving under the influence of drinking and has

I seem to appear.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration is considerably high by 0.148%, and the fact that the accident occurred while driving under the influence of alcohol is considered disadvantageously, and the defendant's blood behavior is reflected in light of the favorable circumstances.