A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 21, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, a summary order of KRW 1 million as a fine for the same crime in the same court on January 2, 2012, and a summary order of KRW 5 million as a fine in the same court on June 11, 2014, respectively.

On August 1, 2014, at around 05:0, the Defendant driven an E body-wide car without a car driver’s license from approximately 2 kilometers of alcohol concentration from around 0.073 to around 0.0% of blood alcohol concentration from around 05:0,00 to the roads in the front of the YYYY, the YY, the YY, the YY, the YY, the YY, the

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A report on occurrence (driving and unlicensed driving), a report on the state of drinking drivers, a report on the state of drinking drivers, a report on the state of drinking drivers, an inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and an investigation report (on-site status, etc.);

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report criminal investigations (report attached to the same criminal records and judgments);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1, 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving), subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of without a license) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is denied that the Defendant and the defense counsel did not drive the Ethroman car (hereinafter “instant car”).

In other words, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that “the drinking alcohol at G main points located in F on the day of the instant case, but the proxy driving officer sent to return home is standing the said car at the end of the dispute between himself and the proxy driving fee, which was standing the said car on the one-way road, and was set off within the car, and was only controlled by the police during the locking.”