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

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

Criminal facts

On June 17, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on 17, 2008, and a fine of five million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court on 19 February 2014, respectively.

As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

The Defendant, without a vehicle driver’s license, driven a C Stitu-type vehicle at approximately 500 meters in front of the “Sacoon-gu cafeteria” restaurant located in the Soyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 22:46 on March 22, 2014, with the influence of alcohol content of 0.15%, and driving a C Stitu-gu vehicle at approximately 500 meters in front of the “Sacoon-gu” restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Report on the results of the drinking driving control, and a driver's license inquiry;

3. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and investigation report-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

4. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

5. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

6. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the past history of serving multiple punishments due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving, and in particular, the fact that drinking driving is not likely to cause serious human damage by causing large traffic accidents, etc. is an element for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all the facts charged in this case and supports the wife and two children is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.