A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On August 7, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 700,000 won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeonju District Court on August 7, 2007, a fine of 4 million won for the same crime in the same court on August 24, 2009, and a fine of 5 million won for the same crime in the same court on October 23, 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant had had a history of drinking twice or more as above, on June 6, 2014, at around 03:24, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle at approximately 3 km from the day before the Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Home Plux Road to the front road of Samcheon-dong Village of the same Gu, while under the influence of alcohol 0.157% without a motor vehicle driver’s license, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle at around 0 km in the 3km section without a vehicle driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and investigation reports, 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 (a point of driving under the influence of sound), subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 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. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal reference in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution ( repeatedly considering the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Although the reasons for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on community service and lecture attendance order had had the record of having already been punished four times due to drinking driving, the circumstances and the nature of the crime in this case were not somewhat weak in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case, but the defendant led to confession and reflect of the crime in this case, the circumstances of the crime in this case, the fact that the defendant did not have any criminal record exceeding fines due to the same kind of crime, and the sentencing materials recorded in the records in this case such as the defendant's family environment, etc.