On November 19, 2001, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in support of Sungnam-gu Office of Friwon method, and on October 2, 2003, issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million as a same crime from the same support on October 2, 2003, and issued a summary order of KRW 4 million as a fine for the same crime from the same support on February 4, 2014, and on January 21, 2016, the Seoul East District Court sentenced 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution and became final and conclusive on January 29, 2016.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was punished twice or more as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as above, the Defendant driven B-B cargo vehicle with approximately 0.157% alcohol concentration in the blood without obtaining a driver’s license from around 44:0 in the 100-meter section from January 20, 2016 to around 358 at the south-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Songpa-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and the statement in the circumstances of the driver;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, reporting on the results of the investigation (related to confirmation of the same criminal records of the suspect), and the application of statutes on investigation reports;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Subsequent to Article 37 of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of volume are repeated despite having been subject to several criminal punishments due to driving under drinking, and in particular, the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime while being tried due to driving under drinking is considered to be disadvantageous to the sentencing.