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.

Criminal facts

On June 13, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on June 13, 2013, and was sentenced to a fine of four million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 29, 2013.

The Defendant without a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol with 0.060% of blood alcohol content, and around January 15, 2014, at around 16:00, the Defendant driven Cpoter cargo at the section of about 5 km to the front road of the Sinju-si Sinan-si Si Sinririririri-ri “Saero distribution” on January 15, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. A brewing driver's license and an assistant driver's license;

3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;

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

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

4. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

6. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times due to drinking driving in the past, and the fact that drinking driving is likely to cause serious human and physical harm, and the fact that the crime is bad, etc. are elements for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is an element of sentencing that is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognizes all the facts charged in the instant case and is against the law, that the degree of exploitation is not much serious, and that the defendant must support the three children.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.