A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000,000 for a fine of KRW 500,000 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on September 1, 2008, and a person who had been issued a summary order of KRW 3.5 million for the same crime in the same court on January 15, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, at around 10:02, the Defendant driven a B EF rocketing or other car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.123% without obtaining a driver’s license from the front side of the Taecheon-si, Kimcheon-si to the front side of the restaurant at the Maternehouse located in the Ycheon-si, Kimcheon-si.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated two times the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, was driving a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver's license under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written report from an employee of an employer;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

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

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. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant was subject to multiple criminal punishment due to drunk driving, and the Defendant’s liability for the instant crime is not less severe than that of the instant crime. On the other hand, it is decided as per Disposition in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant did not have any criminal history heavier than that of probation, and is against the Defendant.