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 May 16, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 5 million as a fine in the same court on December 6, 2010, respectively.

On November 15, 2014, at around 18:45, the Defendant driven B Poter truck with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.107% without obtaining a driver’s license in approximately 800 meters section from the front of 212 roads to the front of 298, an Eup/Myeon, Yangwon-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gun, Seoul, to the front of 298.

Accordingly, even though the defendant was punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, he again driven the above cargo while under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (whether the accused corresponds to the system of drinking-driving under the influence of alcohol)-related 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. 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 extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant has three times the same criminal records, etc., and expressed his intent of reflectivity while committing the instant crime, and that social relation is obvious, and that he has expressed his intent to prevent recidivism by disposing of his own vehicle after the instant case. In light of these circumstances, various circumstances revealed in the oral proceedings of this case, including the character and conduct of the defendant, the environment, etc., are taken into consideration.