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 March 7, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Jung-gu District Court Goyang Branch on March 7, 2013, and a summary order of KRW 3 million as a fine in the same court on June 21, 2013 (driving).

As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.060%, without a car driver’s license, driven B rocketing car at the 100-meter section prior to the Do in front of the “Mapog Gambet” located in the Mapo-si, Kimpo-si, Yangpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, from December 3, 2013 to the 3rd road of the “Mapo-si” located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Report on proper launch of drivers and the register of driver's licenses of motor vehicles;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the past record of punishment several times due to drinking driving and driving without obtaining a license, and in particular, the fact that drinking driving is not likely to cause serious human damage due to large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant is an element for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

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