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

[criminal power] On May 30, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Western District Court, and on June 12, 2013, the Seoul Western District Court issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for the same crime.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant had a drinking-driving power twice or more, on September 13, 2013, without obtaining a driving license around 19:20, the Defendant driven B-low-class car in the 1km section from the road located in Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-dong to approximately 530,00, under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.108%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the occurrence of the case, report on the situation of the driving without a license, report on the situation of the driving without a license, inquiry into the results of the crackdown on the driving without a license, report on the state of the driving with a driver’s license, and

1. Previous for judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry inquiry reports and investigation reports (a copy of summary order of related cases), such as criminal records;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) point of drinking: Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act;

(b) Unlicensed driving: Subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Taking account of the following facts: (a) Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the fact that the Defendant is breaking his wrong depth; (b) the blood alcohol concentration measured by the Defendant at the time of regulating the previous driving of alcohol was relatively lower; (c) there was no history of having been punished heavier than a fine; and (d) the violation of the Road Traffic Act among each of the instant offenses (the fact that the Defendant was 2 or more times of previous convictions constituting a crime of drinking alcohol driving) has been committed before the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act subject to the aggravated punishment, and there is room for some consideration.

1. Reasons for discretionary mitigation under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act;