On March 10, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek District Court on March 10, 201. On May 10, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year for the same crime in the same court.

Although the Defendant had had a history of driving under the influence of alcohol twice as above, he again driven a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver’s license from a section of approximately 700 meters in the direction of the International Hospital parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si to the road located in the same area of the discharge axis, from a section of about 700 meters in the direction of the blood alcohol level to the road located in the same area of the discharge axis.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of regulating driving of drinking, reporting on the circumstances of driving of drinking, and inquiry letter of driver's license;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (the previous confirmation of such past history);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) (the point of drinking), Article 152 subparagraph 1, and Article 43 of the Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant has a number of criminal records identical to that of the defendant, and the defendant does not drive under the influence of alcohol again in the case No. 296 of the High Court Order 2012.

Although a sentence is inevitable in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case even though he/she committed the crime in this case, he/she shall be sentenced to punishment as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant is once again once again, and other various circumstances shown in the records, such as the age, sex, family environment, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.