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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 15, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and on October 4, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court, and on July 20, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 6 million as a fine of KRW 1 million for the same crime.

On November 10, 2015, the Defendant driven B car with alcohol content of about 0.094% while under the influence of alcohol without a driver’s license from the front of the head of Hopju, where it is impossible to identify the trade name in the upper salary-dong at the Jinju-si, and around that time, from the front of the head of Hopju to the front road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of crackdown on driving of alcohol, statement of the circumstances of the driver driving, inquiry of the results of crackdown on driving of alcohol, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a written inquiry inquiry, such as criminal history, report on the result of confirmation of the previous conviction before and after the disposition, text of the judgment, and summary order statutes;

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

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was found to have been aware of for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding the order to provide community service and attend lectures once due to drinking driving, and even though he/she was found to have been driven by drinking on June 2015, the Defendant’s liability for the crime of this case is not less than five months, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects his crime, that the defendant has no record of punishment, and that there is no record of punishment other than the fine due to the same crime, etc.