[criminal power] On September 9, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong site, and a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on November 18, 2011, respectively. On September 26, 2012, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Free Driver).

【Criminal Facts】

On May 15, 2015, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at least 0.149% on May 12:24, 2015, driven a non-registered-registered-registered-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free-free

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report on the driver and the report on detection of the driver;

1. An investigation report (for a suspect's two-wheeled vehicle):

1. Previous records or records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the main sentence of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation, and the choice of imprisonment for 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. In light of the favorable circumstances in which the Defendant appears to repent of the reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation, the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving, etc. over several times in the past, and in particular, in the above court in the case of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Act No. 20141) and the Road Traffic Act (Act No. 141), even though the above court again decided not to drive under the influence of alcohol, it is considered to have committed the instant crime disadvantageous to the Defendant.