A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won for a crime of violation of road traffic law by the Incheon District Court. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on September 9, 2016 for the same crime in the Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on September 1, 2016.

Although the Defendant violated Article 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act twice, the Defendant driven an E Cost Driex vehicle under the influence of 0.290% alcohol concentration in blood without a vehicle driver’s license for approximately one meter on the front of the Dju shop located in the 17:37 p.m. on April 23, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.290%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving without a license, report on the situation of a driver driving, notification on the results of regulating the driving of drinking, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (a summary order and attachment of judgment attached to the same type of force);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of quantity is a short distance (1m) and there are favorable circumstances, such as recognizing and reflecting a crime.

However, in consideration of the fact that a drinking driving has already been punished twice due to two times as a result of drinking, one time as a result of refusing to measure drinking, and two times as a result of a non-licensed driving, again, during the period of suspension of drinking driving, the drinking value of this case is very high by 0.290%, the potential risk of traffic accident due to drinking driving (in fact, however, the actual contact accident due to the drinking driving of this case would occur due to the driving of this case), and the equity of punishment, etc., the court does not select and punish imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this case.