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

[criminal history] On July 27, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of indictment for a violation of road traffic law at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office, and on October 14, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violation of road traffic law (drinking) at the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch Office.

[2] On July 6, 2017, around 08:20, the Defendant driven a B 25-metric truck with a alcohol level of 0.151% alcohol level while under the influence of alcohol at about 10 kilometers from the front of the restaurant of the Red Sea Bap, Seoul, and the front of the 1140-year city green city, Nam-gun, Seoul, Seoul, without obtaining a driver’s license from around 10 kilometers, to the front of the 1140-year city.

Accordingly, the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle without a driver's license, has violated the prohibition of drinking under the Road Traffic Act at least twice, and once again driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition of drinking driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding reports on drivers of drinking alcohol and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking alcohol;

1. Previous conviction in the judgment: Five copies of summary order and text of the judgment, five copies of the suspect A's violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol), confirmation of a disposition of suspension of indictment, confirmation of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol), and application of the inquiry of the case

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order and the order to attend lectures had the history of serving several punishments for the same kind of crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant, but it is against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant has no record of the same punishment exceeding the fine is considered as favorable to the Defendant.