A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 1, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court, and on December 26, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of fine of five million won for the same crime in the same court.

On 06:05 on 23, 2014, the Defendant driven a vehicle B benE350 without obtaining a driver’s license in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.165% in the 3km section from the front of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 231 to the front of 231, as prescribed in the same Gu Ordinance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Investigation report (application of the Tramark Official Form);

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, investigation reports (former records and summary orders) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Reasons for discretionary mitigation);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime threatening not only to himself but also to a large number of unspecified people's lives and property. The criminal defendant has been punished twice since drinking driving since 2006, and the corresponding punishment is inevitable because he/she drives a vehicle in a high drinking state of 0.165% even though he/she was punished twice since drinking driving since 2006. However, the criminal defendant seems to be against his/her own mistake, the criminal defendant is not going back to a traffic accident other than drinking driving, and the criminal defendant exceeds the fine until the crime of this case.