A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 15, 2017, the Defendant driven a Grand City in the section of about 5km from the front of the 1431 subway water station to the front of the 1431 subway station, Ansan-si, Syang-si, Syang-si, Syang-si, Syang-si, the Defendant driven a Grand City Kaland without a driver’s license, from around 11:24, 201 to the front of the 232 Ansan Station.

2. On May 17, 2017, at around 17:00, the Defendant driven a Dland knife vehicle without the driver’s license from around about 2 km to around 495, 17:5, from the front side of the iron 56 knife-ro, Sim-ro 495, from the front side of the knife-ro, Simsan-ro, Simsan-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting the circumstances of driving without licenses;

1. Article 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes are as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months on July 21, 2016 by the Seoul Southern District Court for a violation of Road Traffic Act (non-licenseless Driving), and on December 15, 2016, the said judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on December 15, 2016, and committed the crimes of Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment”), and the crimes of Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes were committed on April only from the date of final and conclusive judgment while the said judgment was in the period of suspended execution

Since 2015, the Defendant committed the same kind of crime several times, and even in that case, the Defendant made a vindication that “the purpose of livelihood” was “the purpose of livelihood” as in the instant trial.

There is no pre-determinedness.

More than anything else is impossible.