A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 1, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million by the Gwangju District Court as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million by the same court on December 11, 2015.

On September 21, 2016, at around 00:40 on September 21, 2016, the Defendant driven C, while under the influence of alcohol content of at least 0.077% while under the influence of alcohol without a vehicle driver’s license, at a section of approximately 500 meters from the front road, to the underground parking lot of the well-finite apartment located in the same Dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment to the summary order) and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under the Criminal Act is that the defendant was punished three times from 2004 to 2015 by drinking driving, and even if he was punished by non-licensed driving, re-offending is unfavorable. However, there are favorable circumstances such as the defendant's failure to drive a substitute driver for the above LH apartment until the above LH apartment, and the defendant appears to have caused the driving of the instant case as his substitute driver and the trial cost, and the fact that the defendant is against the defendant's confession of his criminal act, taking this into account, the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, health condition, circumstances after the crime, and all the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case, such as the defendant's age, sex, circumstance, and circumstances after the crime, etc.