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

1. On August 18, 2018, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at around 18:35, the Defendant driven a B non-stop vehicle within the 3km section from the road where it is difficult to find out whether it is 0.150% or less of alcohol content in the blood transfusion, on the road where it is difficult to identify whether it is 0.150% or less of alcohol content, to the roads front of the instant lab, in the same City.

2. No automobile which has not been subscribed to mandatory insurance of automobile violating the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Insurance shall be operated on the road;

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the vehicle that was not covered by the automobile mandatory insurance at the time and place mentioned in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding reports, investigation reports, and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Application of insurance-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking), Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (the point of operating automobiles which are not mandatory insurance), and selection of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order of Education and the Order of Community Service was that the Defendant had been punished twice by a fine due to drinking, but re-driving of the same alcohol, and the alcohol concentration at the time is high.

Furthermore, the defendant is likely to cause a situation in which it is impossible to relieve the victim if a traffic accident occurs due to the operation of a vehicle that is not covered by mandatory insurance.

On the other hand, the defendant is against the wrong recognition, and again, the defendant is not driving under the influence of alcohol, and he was only driving under the influence of alcohol without any particular damage.

In addition, the aforementioned circumstances and the distance from which drinking is to be driven.