On April 10, 2009, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of a fine of 1.5 million won by committing a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court, and on June 22, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 months by imprisonment without prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On October 4, 2012, around 23:48, the Defendant driven a d'bpon vehicle with approximately 1 Km section under the influence of alcohol content of 0.104% without a vehicle driver's license, from the front day of the fluence in the name of the Dong-dong, to the front day of the 1073 SK KK Station.

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 convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by inquiry and inquiry;

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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (C) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant has been punished three times as a drunk driving in the past, and has a history of having been punished once as a non-licensed driving in the past, and it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant in that he/she has reached the instant case’s drinking and non-licensed driving without any influence even though he/she is currently under the period of probation.

However, the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age and character, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., are considered as having been divided in depth, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined.