A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 February 1, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million with fines for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 5 million with fines in the same court on August 7, 2012 with the same offense, etc., respectively.

On January 20, 2013, at around 22:49, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a franchi vehicle from approximately 200 meters away from the bewing-dong in Daegu Nam-gu to the middle Eastdong in the same Dong, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.059%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, report on the control of drinking driving, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, etc., an inquiry report on the previous record of disposition, a report on the results of confirmation, an investigation report, and the application of each summary order 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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the order to attend a compliance driving lecture is that the Defendant, in light of the fact that he again committed the instant crime even though he had the record of four times of punishment for the same kind of crime since 2005.

However, considering the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the blood alcohol concentration (0.059%) of the defendant at the time of committing the crime of this case is relatively low, the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution or more, the defendant's age, character and conduct, and all other normal data revealed in the trial process, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.