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

On April 25, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Busan District Court Branch Branch on April 25, 2008, and a summary order of KRW 4 million as a fine violation of the same Act in the same court on August 6, 2018, respectively.

Nevertheless, at around 05:30 on May 25, 2019, the Defendant driven a EKamine vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.119% without obtaining a driver's license in approximately 300 meters from the apartment parking lot B in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si to the road in C, and from the 300-meter road in the Dropo-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle without a driver's license under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, investigation report (report on the state of drinking drivers), and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime;

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

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 extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. In view of the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a lecture or the Order of Community Service had the record of being punished for the same crime, and the blood alcohol concentration of the instant case reaches 0.119%, the Defendant’s liability for the instant crime is not minor.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects it, the content of the same criminal records, and