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

On July 27, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Suwon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On January 5, 2012, Cheongju District Court's Young-dong Branch's judgment of KRW 1,500,000 as a crime of the same offense is obvious that "the summary order" in the indictment is a clerical error, and it is correct ex officio.

was sentenced.

1. The Defendant is a person who violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice as stated above, and again, the indictment does not include this part in the indictment, but it can be identified that it is such a purport in light of the applicable provisions of law, etc.

On May 24, 2016, around 22:35, 2016, a vehicle with blood alcohol level of 0.159% under the influence of alcohol level B while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver's license from a section of about 3 km from the front of the Mesing amsing to the front of the amsing market located in the Geumcheon-gun, the Youngcheon-gun, the Youngcheon-gun, the Sincheon-gu, the Sincheon-do.

The prosecutor indicted this part of the criminal facts as substantive concurrent crimes.

However, as a result of the hearing by this court, it is recognized that there is an ordinary concurrent relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987). Such recognition is no less favorable to the defendant, so it is recognized as an ordinary concurrent crime without changing the indictment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Do2236 delivered on December 9, 1980, etc.). 2. An automobile not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall not be operated on the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as a holder of the said car, operated an automobile which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the above time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Mandatory insurance policies;

1. Criminal records as indicated: Criminal records, etc.;