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

On April 2, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act by the Daegu District Court on April 2, 2008. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of 4 million won by the Daegu District Court on July 12, 2012.

On January 18, 2013, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver’s license at around 16:50 on January 18, 2013, driven the Banco in the section of about 10km from 10km to the Gaco road located in the central road of Gaco-Eup in the same military, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.075%.

As a result, the defendant had a history of drinking driving more than twice but also had a drinking driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on proper launch of drivers, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as inquiry reports and investigation reports (report attached to the same final judgment);

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 for ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a 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 (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant was punished several times for drinking driving in the past even though he was punished for the past, and the reason for the revision of the Road Traffic Act that strengthened the punishment for drinking driving, etc., it is inevitable for the defendant to punish the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, and other defendant's age, family relationship, health status, personality and behavior, environment, etc.