A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 8, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Cheongju District Court on the same day, and on July 6, 2010, a summary order of KRW 3 million as a fine for the same crime at the same court on the same day.

On April 11, 2015, at around 22:57, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a car with D highest 20 meters away from the front road of the Geumcheon-dong square, which is in a common room located in the Gu corresponding to the Cheongju-si, Sinju-si, to the front road of the Samcheon apartment located in the Cheongju-si, Sinju-si, Sinju-si, without a driver’s license.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated it more than twice even though he was prohibited from driving under the influence of alcohol, and again driven the said car under the influence of alcohol as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. An inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, driver's license inquiry, and circumstantial statement of the drinking driver;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal history records, investigation reports (former records and summary orders attached) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) 1, 44 (1) and 152 subparagraph 1, and 43 of theo Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (C) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine twice due to a drunk driving and a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than once due to a refusal to measure a drunk driving.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not have been a person and re-driving without a driver’s license.

The drinking measuring value also is 0.149% and is relatively high.

On the other hand, however, the defendant shows his attitude to reflect his fault late.

In addition, the circumstances of unlicensed drinking driving, the circumstances after driving, the age, character and behavior, family relationship, family environment and other arguments of this case are shown.