A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the Ulsan District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on June 1, 2016.

2. On July 22, 2016, the Defendant, at around 21:05, driven B Poter, spobes, and faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-

As a result, the defendant was punished for drinking twice or more, and was engaged in drinking and driving without a license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the ledger of each driver's license, and the circumstantial report of each driver;

1. Records of judgment: Application of criminal history records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (suspect drinking prior to and confirmation of suspect drinking);

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 of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on any violation of the Road Traffic Act of which the punishment at the time of sale is heavier shall be punished);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include the fact that the defendant had already been punished twice due to drinking driving, and furthermore, the fact that the defendant carried out drinking again on April 12, 2016 due to the fact that he was under the influence of drinking driving and carried out drinking again on March 12, 2016, which is disadvantageous to the defendant, the defendant has divided his mistake, and since 200 years thereafter.