A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 11, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's Seoul District Court's distribution support on June 11, 2014; on August 12, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act; on October 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Gwangju District Court's distribution support on July 29, 2015; and on November 6, 2015, the period of the suspended sentence as of November 6, 2015.

On April 16, 2016, at around 22:00, the Defendant driven a C truck with approximately 3 km from the front road of the Gyeongan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul-do, in the influence of alcohol by 0.122% without a driver’s license for a motor vehicle, to the front road of the same Eup/Myeon in front of the Gyeongan-gun, Gyeongan-gun, Seoul-do.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on detection of violations of the Road Traffic Act, circumstantial reports on drivers, notification of the results of the control of drinking and driving, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments, etc. on the same criminal records as the suspect);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts, subparagraph 1 of Article 152, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. In light of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the judgment of suspension of execution became final and conclusive despite a large amount of punishment records due to drunk driving even though the punishment records other than the punishment records stated in the reasoning for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, and that the blood alcohol content is relatively high, the Defendant has a favorable condition in support of his or her wife and children and against the mistake, despite the fact that there is a relatively high degree of alcohol content.