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

Punishment of the crime

On May 20, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million by a fine for a violation of road traffic laws at the Gwangju District Court on May 20, 201, and on October 13, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for five months and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 17, 2017, due to a violation of road traffic laws (drinking) committed by the Gwangju District Court on February 18, 2016.

On August 13, 2016, from around 00:00 to around 00:30, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with a motor vehicle driver’s license without obtaining a motor vehicle driver’s license in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.089% from the front side of the mutual influent restaurant near the Namnam University in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu to the front side of the same Gu Geumho-dong Pu apartment zone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. An explanatory note;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a reply to inquiry, investigation report (the same criminal record and confirmation of a case in trial), summary order, etc., such as criminal history;

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. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. As to the Defendant’s argument regarding Article 53 and Article 55 subparag. 1 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Act mitigated, the Defendant did not drive alcohol on the ground that he did not drive alcohol on the ground that he did not drive alcohol on the grounds that he did not drive alcohol after having parked at the detection place.

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence in the judgment, the Defendant driven a drinking beverage by drinking it.

It is reasonable to view it.

On August 13, 2016, the 112 Report that the defendant is coming from the vehicle was accepted on August 13, 2016, and the defendant is 0.089% in response to the measurement of drinking around 05:10.