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

[Criminal Power] On October 8, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 4 million at the Ulsan District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the same month, and the same month

9. In addition to the issuance of a summary order of a fine of three million won or more for the same offense in the same court, the same record has three times more.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 27, 2016, at least 23:35, the Defendant driven a DNA strawing car without a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.088% of the 0.08% of the alcohol content, on the front of the “hacking restaurant” located in the main vibration in Yangsan-si, the front of the “hacking restaurant” located in the same city’s new name 47 meters.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. To inquire about reports on the state of state of drinking drivers, and the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records and application of each summary order;

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In that the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is deemed to have been habitually committed on five occasions including the case in which the number of drunk driving for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the order to attend school is deemed to have been habitually committed on five occasions, the case is not less complicated, but there is no record of the previous suspended sentence or higher, and the amount of drinking alcohol is not significantly high, the sentence