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

On January 15, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 3,000,000 won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon branch of the Daegu District Court on January 15, 201, and one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon branch of the Daegu District Court on April 27, 2012.

On March 1, 2015, at around 03:00, the Defendant driven a DM3 car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.247% without obtaining a driver's license from around 50M section from the front of the building in the city of the Gu of the Gu of the Si of the Si of the Gu of the Si of the Gu to the front of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the 24 Empt

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of running a driving under the influence of alcohol, inquiry into the results of the crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol, and report on the state of standing;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act has reached the instant crime even though the same criminal records had been multiple times, the defendant's responsibility for the illegal act is not weak.

However, there are circumstances to consider the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has repeatedly committed his mistake and again failed to drive under the influence of alcohol, and that he did not cause an accident due to the crime of this case.

In addition, the defendant's age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime of this case, circumstances after committing the crime, etc.