A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 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

On March 15, 2010, the Defendant issued each summary order of KRW 2 million by the Ulsan District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and KRW 3.5 million by the above court on March 13, 2014 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On January 4, 2015, at around 23:50, the Defendant driven a Bskn vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of about 0.095% while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license on the road from the vicinity of the Kentent restaurant in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu to the road in front of the agricultural and fishery product market located in Ulsan-gu, Busan-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and report on the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Report of case launch (three pages of investigation records) and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Records before judgment: Application of criminal records, repeated statements, and copies of each summary order;

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 fact that the defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, committed the instant crime even though he/she had the criminal history of drunk driving twice, and that the defendant attempted to go beyond his/her responsibility to the defendant's will be disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the confession and reflectness of the defendant, and the fact that there is no record of crimes other than the criminal records of the above drunk driving, the age, character and conduct, environment, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the argument of this case.