A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

On March 18, 2013, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the support of the Daejeon District Court on March 18, 2013.

On October 11, 2019, around 09:57, the Defendant driven a B body-man car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.082% without obtaining a driver’s license from a section of about 4 km from the Cheongju-si internal waters of the petition-gu to the Yacheon-si in the same Gu, Sin Chang-gu to the Yacheon-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on response to criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (power to punish sound driving);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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 ( considered as favorable circumstances among the grounds for the relevant punishment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation, community service order, and order to attend a lecture, is a very dangerous crime that may cause unexpected behaviors to the life and family of others by raising the possibility of traffic accidents, and thus, in order to prevent this, the defendant is bound to bear strict responsibility for the act related thereto. The defendant committed the instant crime even though he was punished twice due to drinking driving, including the record in the judgment, even though he had the record of the judgment, and also committed the instant crime. Meanwhile, the defendant led to the confession of and reflect against the instant crime, the defendant has no record of excessive criminal punishment of fines due to the same crime, and all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the volume of blood alcohol level, etc.