1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

2. Provided, That 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 June 11, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court, and KRW 2 million as a fine in the same court on November 13, 2009.

On January 8, 2015, at around 23:20, the Defendant driven a B-learning car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.176% without obtaining a driver’s license, from the front of the restaurant in which the trade name in the Geum-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju is unknown to the front of the public road in the same Gu, to the public road in front of the public road in the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and application of respective statutes governing judgment;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for not less than six months up to one year and six months; and

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Offenses for which the sentencing criteria are not set; and

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and suspended execution for 2 years, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act as stated in its reasoning, the driving of the license without the drinking alcohol in this case was made at the same time, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.176% higher than that of the defendant, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case shall be determined as ordered.