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

Punishment of the crime

On December 31, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million with fines of KRW 1.5 million with respect to the same crime from the Sungwon District Court's Sungnam branch on December 17, 2009, and KRW 1.5 million with respect to the same crime with respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Gyeyang Branch of the Suwon District Court.

1. On September 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 10:30 on September 13, 2014, operated a E-UP car from approximately 10km section from the front of the Defendant’s domicile in the Suwon-si Suwon-dong, Young-dong, 258-2, in the direction of about 10km from the front of the Defendant’s domicile in the Suwon-si, Young-si, 258-2; and (b) around 16:30 on the same day, from the Pacific-si, Gyeonggi-si, 1118-6 GS25-6, Gyeonggi-si, 1118-6, to the front of the Simpo-si, Mapo-dong.

2. Around September 14, 2014, the Defendant driven the said pro rata vehicle at approximately 372 meters from the road front of the Sinpo-si 1118-6 and GS25 Mapo-ro 203, in the state of under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.142% without obtaining a driver’s license on September 14, 2014, to the road front of the Sinpo-si 118-6 and GS25 Mapo-ro 203, a repair acid.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. A reply to inquiries, such as criminal records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (report on confirmation of the same kind of power);

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts of the crime;

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter the following reason for sentencing) is not only the defendant was punished for the three-time drinking driving, but also the defendant was not aware of the fact that he refused to measure the drinking alcohol, and cannot be subject to a fine in relation to the driving under the influence of alcohol again by driving under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, it is true.