On September 15, 200, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a fine of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on December 14, 2001, and was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the Suwon District Court on April 25, 2003, and was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on September 28, 2009. On February 14, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on February 14, 2013, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 6.2 years for imprisonment with prison labor at the Sungnam District Court on April 19, 2013.

On October 29, 2014, the Defendant, who was punished twice or more for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, was driving a vehicle of Bsch Rexton without obtaining a driver’s license in the state of drinking alcohol level of about 0.132% from the 1km section of approximately 1km to the front road of Pyeongtaek-dong, which is located in the vicinity of Pyeongtaek-dong Pyeong-dong, Pyeongtaek-dong, Pyeongtaek-dong at around 00:35,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driving under the influence of alcohol and the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports, copies of each summary order, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the judgment;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime, Articles 148-2 (1) 1, 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of a sound driving) and Articles 152 subparagraph 1, and 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of a without a license driving) concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation may be considered as favorable to the defendant that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and reflects his mistake. However, the defendant was punished six times due to the same kind of drunk driving.