A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 18, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court on May 18, 201, and on February 23, 2012, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court on March 3, 2012.

On July 25, 2013, at around 21:00, the Defendant driven a C Car while under the influence of alcohol level 0.111%, without obtaining a driver’s license, from approximately 1.3km to the front road of the 36-3 (U.S. P., P., P., P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P.

(i) Summary of the evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry reports and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports (verification as to whether the period of suspension of execution of sentence is terminated);

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 reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (C) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is against the defendant's mistake, and both the defendant and the defendant's wife obstruct the defendant's fault. However, the defendant not only has been punished several times due to the same crime, but also committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed a traffic accident in the same manner as the previous crime in the judgment, which resulted in a traffic accident, in spite of the fact that he committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he committed the crime in the current period of suspension of execution. In light of the defendant's attitude of the law, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant's punishment on the defendant because it cannot give a severe warning to the defendant. However, the defendant's specific punishment is