A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 31, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Young-gu District Court’s Young-gu District Court’s Young-gu Branch, etc. On August 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 7 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. from the same support on February 16, 2015.

On July 27, 2015, at around 12:55, the Defendant driven C 125cc mera while under the influence of alcohol with approximately 50 meters of alcohol content 0.113%, without obtaining a motorcycle driver’s license, from the mobilization restaurant located within the territorial sea of Yong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the territorial sea of the Republic of Korea to the Matern in the same Ri.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Inquiry into the occurrence report of a traffic accident, a report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, a report on the results of crackdown on drinking driving, a report on the actual status of a traffic accident, an investigation report on the actual status of a traffic accident (including photographs attached thereto), the register of driver's licenses, the records of crackdown on drinking driving, and an inquiry

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports (former records and attachment of judgment), and statutes, such as criminal records;

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 2 of Article 154 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for commercial concurrent crimes (limited to punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a punishment, but selection of a fine);

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14448, Apr. 2, 2009) is that the defendant has several previous cases as stated in its reasoning, and the defendant has driven three times for about one year, including this case, and the defendant has driven three times for drinking.