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

On July 28, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 1,500,000 won by the Daegu District Court due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On May 12, 2020, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.060% without obtaining a driver’s license on May 12, 2020, the Defendant driven a dial vehicle without mandatory insurance at approximately 1 km from the front of a restaurant where the trade name located in Chungcheong budget-gun is unknown to C.

As a result, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, carried out a license without license, and driven a motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Mandatory insurance policies;

1. Previous convictions: Application of criminal records, identical records, and summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the main sentence of Article 8 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment prescribed for a violation of each Road Traffic Act at the time of marketing and the punishment heavier than that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times due to drinking driving in the past, and the fact that the quality of the instant crime is not good, etc. is unfavorable to the defendant.

(b).