A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 5 million at the Cheongju District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On October 8, 2019, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver’s license, driven a DSS5 car from around 1 km to the roads of the Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Heungdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju-si, under the influence of alcohol of 0.048% of alcohol level around 23:20.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstances of a drinking driver and report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and investigation reports (a report on the confirmation of the same type of power);

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

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act, a violation of the Road Traffic Act, a violation of the Road Traffic Act, or a violation of the Road Traffic Act with 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. An unfavorable condition, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, background of the crime, family relationship, blood alcohol concentration before and after the crime, and all other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the fact that the crime of sentencing is recognized as well as the erroneous and contradictoryness, the fact that there is no record of heavy punishment exceeding the fine, and traffic accidents, etc., which are favorable circumstances such as traffic accidents, etc., and that the record of the same kind of crime is more than several times, shall be determined as indicated in the order.