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.

Punishment of the crime

On September 1, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Jeju District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on April 15, 2016, the same court received a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On June 21, 2018, at around 08:50, the Defendant driven a DNA-type car without obtaining a driver's license from approximately 4 km section from the vicinity of the port of Jinpo-Eup in Seopo-si to the roads in front of the construction site adjacent to C elementary school located in B, and without driving the D Spo-type car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.17%.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver's license under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, investigation report (report on the state of drinking drivers), notification on the results of the control of drinking driving, inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, details of disposition on cancellation of driver's license, and register of driver's licenses

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of two copies of a written summary order, such as criminal history records, investigation report (former records, confirmation, and attachment of data), and 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 (The following conditions shall be considered in light of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that the Defendant was punished three times.