A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 7, 2013, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver’s license on January 18, 2013, driven a Bnubin car at approximately 5 km from a fright-free agricultural and industrial complex in the fright-to-be, 0.248% of alcohol level, under the influence of alcohol level 0.248%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employer-employed driver and the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger of driver's licenses;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (2) 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. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be repeated for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is very high level of blood alcohol level of 0.248%, and the defendant repeated the crime of this case even though he had been punished three times due to the crime of this case like drinking and the crime of non-licenseing the same kind as the crime of this case. However, it seems that the defendant requires strict punishment against the defendant. However, the defendant has been punished three times of the above fine and one punishment for the same kind of crime, but there is no past record of punishment exceeding the fine. The defendant scrapped his own vehicle because he tried not to obtain a license or drive under the influence of alcohol again after the crime of this case, and the defendant did not have any additional risk, such as traffic accidents during driving of the defendant.