A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

The Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million at the Changwon District Court on May 11, 2009 by a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on October 10, 201, a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions after having issued a summary order of KRW 4.5 million by the same court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

Around 16:50 on May 14, 2013, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a B-owned vehicle at a section of approximately 700 meters from the road near the “B-owned restaurant” located in the G-owned Dog, G-ri, G-ri, G-ri, G-ri, G-ri, G-ri, G-ri, L-ri, G-ri, L-ri, L-ri, L-ri, G-ri, L-ri, L-ri, G

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 of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports and investigation reports (reports on the results of confirmation of the same type of criminal records);

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The execution of a sentence shall be suspended in favor of the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the following facts: (a) since 2004, the defendant has been well aware of the fact that he had been punished three times due to drinking driving, and repeatedly runs drinking driving without being aware of such fact; (b) he is against his mistake; and (c) he has no criminal record exceeding the fine

In addition, probation and lecture order are added in order to encourage the eradication of drinking driving.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.