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

Punishment of the crime

On October 30, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 700,000 to a fine of KRW 700,000 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Young-dong branch of the Young-gu District Court on March 30, 2008; on August 6, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 600,000 for a fine of KRW 10,00 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On June 13, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Young-dong branch of the Seoju District Court on June 21, 201

On February 28, 2013, at around 21:20, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a motor vehicle with Dgallon II under the influence of alcohol content of 0.112% from the front day of the “hyroid Nong-dong, Young-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do,” which is located in the same Ri to the front day of the “hyrium Normum” in the same Ri.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and investigation reports (the records of drunk driving and confirmation of past records during a period of suspension of drinking, not less than twice);

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 53 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (a favorable consideration among the reasons for sentencing) argues that the Defendant was driving at the hospital with the contact of the hospital that the mother hospitalized in the hospital was seriously ill, but as a result of the reverse inquiry into the Defendant’s cellular phone, it is difficult to consider the sentencing on the ground that there exists no telephone details consistent with the Defendant’s assertion.

The defendant has several criminal records for the same kind of crime and in particular in the Youngju District Court's territorial branch around June 2012.