A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 5 million from the Busan District Court to a fine of KRW 5 million due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and a fine of KRW 7 million from the same court on December 24, 2013 to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On August 20, 2017, at around 23:25, the Defendant driven a Dcoke in the state of alcohol 0.240% alcohol concentration while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license from the front side of the Dong Dong-dong office located in the Young-si, Kimhae-si to the front side of the C cafeteria located in the same city.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver's license in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving, report on the situation of the driver who is placed in driving, notification of the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking, and inquiry;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (verification of the same criminal history as the suspect);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) (the point of drinking), Article 152 (1) 1, and Article 43 of the Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of small amount of punishment is that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she had been punished twice due to driving under drinking, without being aware of the fact that he/she had been punished twice.

Considering the alcohol content (0.208% and 0.291%) at the time of drinking driving, which was punished twice in the past, the Defendant caused a large risk to the lives and safety of the general public by repeating drinking in a state that is impossible to drive normally.

During the trial of this case, a trial of this case is not conducted in a normal manner.