On February 1, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment due to a violation of road traffic law in the Hongsung branch of the Daejeon District Court on February 1, 2017 and completed the execution of the sentence on October 12, 2017.

Criminal facts

On May 16, 2018, the Defendant driven a car at the level of 0.120% alcohol concentration in the blood, without obtaining a driver's license, from approximately 1k to approximately 5m of Korean banks located in Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, the Defendant, around 21:10, driven a car at the level of drinking, which was not subscribed to mandatory insurance, in the state of 0.120% of alcohol concentration in the blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The actual survey report and on-site photographs;

1. Notice of the result of drinking control;

1. Inquiry into mandatory insurance;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: The application of a reply letter to inquiry, such as criminal history, the current status of personal confinement, and the statutes of the sentence of 145 High Order 2016;

1. Article 148-2 (2) 2, Article 44 (1) 1, Article 152 (1) 1, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2, and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (the point of operation of an automobile which is not mandatory insurance);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (inter-crimes in each judgment; punishment provided for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in each judgment with the largest punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes lies in various criminal records of the same kind including five criminal records sentenced to imprisonment after 2000 (four times of drinking and seven non-licenseed driving). Accordingly, the criminal records of the judgment and the same contents as the criminal records of the judgment during the repeated crime period were re-offending with a higher drinking volume, and the crime of the instant case caused the instant traffic accident ( even if considering that the other party’s vehicle violated the signal at the time, the Defendant’s negligence appears to have resulted in the occurrence of the traffic accident according to the evidence as seen earlier). Nor is any repeated punishment.