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 May 27, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and KRW 5 million by the same court on March 28, 2014.

At around 08:20 on March 24, 2014, the Defendant once driven a eM7 car under the influence of alcohol by 0.113% without obtaining a driver’s license in approximately 15km section from the roads of the Saemaeul restaurant located in the Yellow-dong in the Gu-si of the Gu-U.S. to the front roads of the Gu-U.S.-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on detection of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving, driving without a license);

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. Report on the actual state of state of drivers, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (a report on confirmation of the same criminal records) and other 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. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. In light of Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for Discretionary Mitigation [this case’s crime is committed after being notified of a summary order on May 27, 201 due to a drunk driving on November 2, 2011, violation of the Special Parole (a fine of five million won has been issued due to an accident after the accident) and the Road Traffic Act (a fine of five million won has been issued due to an accident after the accident). The crime of this case was discovered by a witness’s report due to a sudden driving. However, the Defendant should be punished strictly. However, considering the fact that there was no actual accident caused by the crime of this case, the Defendant disposed of the vehicle as indicated in the judgment while the Defendant was divided into one’s own wrongness, the workplace’s fee and post-paid vessel want to take the Defendant’s wife, the age of the Defendant’s family members, and other family members.