A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 20, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on May 20, 2009. On November 7, 2013, the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced two years to a suspended sentence for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 15, 2013. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a imprisonment of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court.

Even if the Defendant violated the prohibition clause on drunk driving twice or more, on May 15, 2014, at around 00:25, the Defendant again driven a B-ro car without a driver’s license in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.130% from the section of about 500 meters from the front of the Goan High School, which is located as a citizen of the same city to the front road of the Goan High School, 358.30 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The circumstantial report on the driving of a motor vehicle;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of the reference to criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment to the same summary order, etc.);

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 ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a person who commits a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a heavier drinking operation);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (see, e.g., favorable circumstances below) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant led to the instant crime, and the distance from drinking and driving without license is relatively short distance, and on the other hand, it is recognized that the Defendant did not cause a traffic accident due to drinking driving, etc., but on the other hand, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is considerably high, and is punished by a fine or imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime.