A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On December 5, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on December 5, 2014, and on April 15, 2015, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court on April 23, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

On August 11, 2015, at around 04:40, the Defendant driven a DNA-free car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.187% while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver's license from the parking lot for the residents' self-governing center located in the Northwest-gun of Taean-gun to the front of the house of the Defendant located in the Taean-gun C in the Taean-gun, Taean-gun.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver's license under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on actions taken against an employer, and report on the status of an employer-employed driver;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is deemed to be against the Defendant’s wrongness, but the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period for the same kind of crime even though he/she had the record of three times of punishment due to the same crime. The Defendant committed the instant crime at the time of the instant crime, taking into account the fact that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime was considerably higher than 0.187%, and all other conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant records and arguments.