A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

【The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on February 29, 2008. On May 4, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court.

【Criminal fact-finding on February 8, 2018, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with Bsch Rexroth who was not covered by the automobile mandatory insurance in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.107% in the 2km section from the road of 123 km-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu to the island field of the island of Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the 123-dong main roads.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver;

1. Inquiry into mandatory insurance;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes reporting criminal history;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking), Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (the point of operating vehicles which are not mandatory insurance), the selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection and the order of community service, was that the Defendant driven a vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance, after drinking the vehicle, and caused an accident during operation.

At the time of driving of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration in the blood was in a state of drinking that constitutes the revocation of a driver’s license. Meanwhile, even though the Defendant had been punished three times due to driving of drinking, the Defendant committed the instant crime. As such, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor by deeming that a fine may no longer have the effect of punishment against the Defendant.

The conflict between the defendant and the defendant.