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

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant is a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice by receiving a summary order of a fine of KRW 4 million from the Jeju District Court on February 1, 2012, and by receiving a summary order of KRW 5 million from the same court on January 13, 2015 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On July 11, 2015, at around 17:06, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with a gallon owned by the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.199% without a driver’s license, at a section of approximately 600 meters from the upper distance in the Hanpo-si, Hanpo-si, Hanpo-si, Hanpo-gu, Jeju, to the front road in the Hanpo-ri, the same Eup.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and on the circumstances of drinking drivers;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Related photographs;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (a copy of summary order and reporting);

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 ( Taking into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, despite the fact that the defendant was punished twice due to the latest drinking driving, shall be selected to imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of the fact that he/she did not obtain a license at the time of the last drinking driving and run a drinking driving at the time when six months have elapsed since the date of the last drinking driving, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished more severe than the fine, the fact of the crime is recognized and the mistake is against it.