1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

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

3.

Punishment of the crime

On October 19, 2009, the Defendant is a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act by receiving a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daejeon District Court’s collegiate Branch on October 19, 2009, and receiving a summary order of KRW 5 million as a fine for the same crime from the Changwon District Court’s territorial branch on December 4, 2012.

On February 17, 2014, at around 17:20, the Defendant driven a B-type cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.088% without a driver’s license, from around 5 km to the lower-class road of the B-type B-type, where the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.08% without a driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of each statute stated in each of the relevant summary order, such as a fact-finding survey report, report on detection of a master driver, ledger of driver's license, criminal records, etc.;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act 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 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a 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 under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is that the defendant again committed the instant crime since 2000, 4 times a criminal record of drinking alcohol driving, and a criminal record of non-licenseing driving, and 4 times a criminal record of committing the instant crime.

However, there is a favorable circumstance that the defendant reflects the crime, that the defendant has no criminal record of the same suspended sentence or more, and that the detention of the defendant is likely to involve excessive difficulties for his dependants.

The order is issued in consideration of the overall circumstances shown in the pleadings, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant.