A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On August 13, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on August 13, 2009, and was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 4.5 million for the same crime in the same court on June 22, 2012, and on April 25, 2014, the same court was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 4.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Road Traffic Act on October 9, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 31, 2015, at around 21:25, the Defendant driven Cchip-G car without a car driver’s license in the 1km section from the front day of the Sinjin-dong Sinjin-dong, Sinjin-dong to the front day of the same Sindong-dong, Taedong-dong.

As a result, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drunk driving at least twice, and once again driven a motor vehicle without a driver's license in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A fact-finding survey report and a report on detection of a host driver;

1. Automobile license ledger;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previouss before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports (attached to summary orders, etc.);

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. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act include three times a suspended sentence for traffic crimes, including drunk driving, but the defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspended execution period for the same crime. The defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant. The defendant is running the construction office and has lived in good faith, and the suspended sentence is expected to be invalidated.