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

[criminal history] On October 9, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking) in the same court on August 9, 2008, and was sentenced to a fine of five million won in the same court on December 29, 2014.

[2] Although Defendant 1 had been punished twice or more due to driving of drinking, Defendant 2 driven D D's cargo not covered by mandatory insurance at a section of about 1 km up to the 1km distance from the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the 201-35 vehicle without a driver's license, while under the influence of alcohol at around 0:15 on July 7, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving at home, report on the circumstances of driving at home, notification of the results of crackdown on driving of drinking, inquiry into the results of crackdown on driving of drinking, ledger of driver's license (A), and inquiry into mandatory insurance (D);

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Previous conviction: A written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and investigation report (Attachment to the same type of power) (the defendant and his defense counsel did not know that the vehicle of this case was not covered by mandatory insurance, since the defendant lent D D D freight cars from E in relation to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act (hereinafter “the vehicle of this case”).

The argument is asserted.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s legitimate examination of evidence, i.e., the Defendant borrowed the instant vehicle from E at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to this court:

The assertion that E does not submit any documentary evidence on the personal information, contact information, relationship with the defendant, etc., and ② the defendant borrowed the instant vehicle from E through F by the investigative agency.

However, F was stated to the effect that there was no such fact through telephone conversations with police or testimony in this court, and C.