A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 11, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Busan District Court's Dong Branch, and a fine of two million won as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Busan District Court's May 19, 2009. On December 29, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to a summary order of two million won as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Busan District Court's Dong Branch, and on July 24, 2014, the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 24, 2014.

Although the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, around May 10, 2015, at around 05:09, the Defendant driven a Dgal-ro balone vehicle while under the influence of alcohol by 0.196%, without obtaining a driver’s license from the Defendant’s residence located in the Busan Metropolitan City captain C, to the northwest-do, Ulsan Metropolitan City, the northwest-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and driving a Dgal-ro balone vehicle while under the influence of alcohol by 0.196%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records and criminal investigation reports (verification of the same criminal records) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. It is recognized that the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant repents his or her wrong mistake, and that the defendant is liable for the livelihood of his or her family most.

However, it is not good to commit the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of suspension of execution for the same kind of crime even though he had a previous conviction in several times, and the distance of driving or blood alcohol concentration.