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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On March 4, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment due to a violation of road traffic law in the support of the Daejeon District Court Seosan on March 4, 2014, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the Incheon Prison on March 26, 2015. On November 18, 2016, the same court was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment due to a violation of road traffic law (driving), and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 26, 2016.

[2] On October 22, 2016, the Defendant driven a D-hurbed vehicle with alcohol level of about 800 meters from the Defendant’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do to the front road of the drainage station located in the same Ri, without obtaining a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.117%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and statement in the circumstances of the driver of drinking alcohol;

1. A driver's license inquiry;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, reports on the results of confirmation of the previous convictions of the disposition, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (reports on

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. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime despite the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of amount of punishment has served as the same kind of crime, suspension of execution, fine, etc., and that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving reaches 0.117%, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, it is true that the defendant reflects the wrong, and the defendant has been punished concurrently for the violation of road traffic law (drawing driving) and the case of this case in the judgment of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code.