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

Punishment of the crime

On September 2, 2016, around 02:07, the Defendant driven CM5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.171% while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.171%, without obtaining a driver’s license from around 99 to about 150 meters prior to the 150-lane of the Mapo Eup in Gwangju-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating driving of drinking alcohol and statement of the circumstances of driving of drinking alcohol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger of driver's licenses;

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

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following sentencing is to be considered) of the Act on the Mitigation of Small Quantity and Article 55(1)3 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da1448, Nov. 6, 2015) is that the Defendant was sentenced to a two-month suspended sentence for six months as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving) in support of the Sungnam branch of Suwon branch of Suwon branch of the Republic of Korea on November 6, 2015. The judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 14,

In particular, the Defendant committed the crime of this case on July 23, 2016 by committing the crime of unlicensed driving during the period of the above suspension of execution (the date of issuance of the summary order seems to have been after the crime of this case), and again again committed the crime of this case on February of the same year.

The defendant's drinking value is reasonable.

Even if the defendant's argument is accepted as a factual basis, such reason does not constitute an emergency escape ground for the defendant to drive a license without drinking.

In addition, the defendant is aware that he was driving without a license to move to and from the place (the defendant recognized that he was using a motor vehicle for commuting to and from work). Considering these circumstances, the defendant's use of the motor vehicle is considered.