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

Criminal facts

On October 19, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on October 19, 2009. On August 10, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court on August 10, 201 and completed the execution of each of the above punishment on January 2, 201

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

On July 31, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of 0.100% of blood alcohol concentration without obtaining a driver’s license, and operated CK3 car in the direction of approximately 3 kilometers from the front of the etroke-gu, Soyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyang-si to the front of the original road located in the Hayang-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Report on the results of the control of drinking and driving, and the register of driver's licenses.

3. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports (Evidence No. 11)-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. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

5. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act.

6. The reason for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even though he/she had had been punished several times due to drunk driving andless driving in the past, and that drinking driving is a bad offender in terms of the risk of causing serious human injury by causing large traffic accidents.

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.