On March 8, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million with a fine of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 8, 201, a summary order of KRW 4 million with the same crime at the Seoul Western District Court on October 10, 201, and a summary order of KRW 3 million with the same offense from the Incheon Western District Court on June 5, 2012, respectively.

As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

피고인은, 혈중알콜농도 0.146%의 술에 취한 상태에서, 자동차운전면허 없이, 2014. 8. 19. 00:30경 제주시 외도동에 있는 ‘놈놈놈’ 막창집 앞 도로부터 제주시 애월읍 구엄리에 있는 ‘수산공업사’ 앞 도로까지 약 2km 구간에서 D 옵티마 승용차를 운전하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Report on the results of the control of drinking and driving, and the register of driver's licenses.

3. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports (Evidence No. 8)-related Acts and subordinate statutes.

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant has been punished several times in the past due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving in the past, the defendant committed the crime of this case while he is tried to commit the same kind of crime, and the fact that drinking driving is not likely to cause serious human injury by causing large traffic accidents, etc., are elements for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character, environment, and criminal record of the defendant, were taken into consideration equally.