A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On July 3, 2008, the defendant was issued a summary order of one million won or more as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court, and on March 23, 2009, the defendant was issued a summary order of 1.5 million won or more as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court, and on August 22, 2013, the Busan District Court issued a summary order of 5 million won or more as a penalty of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on August 22, 2013, and on August 28, 2013, the above sentence was finalized on September 5, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On September 27, 2014, around 23:15, the Defendant driven B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.069% without obtaining a driver’s license at a distance of about 100 meters from the front of a cafeteria located in Busan Northern-dong, to the front of the “dic village” in the same Dong from the front of the entrance of “dic village” located in the same Dong.

Therefore, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle without permission in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and the circumstantial report on drinking drivers;

1. The register of lanes and driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is contrary to the erroneous reasoning, there was a record of being punished four times due to drunk driving as stated in the judgment, as well as a record of repeatedly requesting a summary order for the same crime, and thus, the same case was committed during the period of suspension of execution.