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 April 11, 2011, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Western District Court on the Seoul Western District Court on July 31, 201, and was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3.5 million for the same crime on July 31, 2012.

The Defendant without a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.14%, driven a motor vehicle B tezine at the distance of approximately approximately 200 meters from the Rabadong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong on July 10, 2013, from the Raba on July 10, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Reading the register of driver's licenses and the results of the control of drinking driving.

3. Previous convictions in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes by inquiry.

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 instant crime even though he/she had been punished twice due to drinking driving in the past, and that the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage by heavy traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, is an element for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it 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.