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 this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 30, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of four million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Cheongju District Court's Cheongju branch on July 30, 2014, and a summary order of a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) on September 28, 2007.

On July 22, 2014, around 10:10, 500, E construction machinery (kn, 7 tons) was driven without obtaining a construction operator's license in the state of 0.196% blood alcohol concentration from the front side of the Hoam Steel to Jincheon-gun D, in the direction of approximately 500 meters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Notice of administrative dispositions, and ledger of driver's licenses;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Thermographic photo;

1. Previous records before ruling: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (a copy of a summary order of the same attached power), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of summary order (Evidence List No. 13);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, and subparagraph 2, and Article 26 of the former Construction Machinery Management Act (Amended by Act No. 12966, Jan. 6, 2015);

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing is that, even though the Defendant was under influence on April 16, 2014 and the construction machinery operator's license was revoked, the Defendant had to drive without permission or drinking again the same vehicle at the time that was long thereafter, and that the trial procedure was conducted after the execution of the detention warrant because the Defendant failed to attend the trial process properly, and the Defendant's health status is not very good.