A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 6, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on September 23, 2016, on September 23, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On May 10, 2017, at around 07:50, the Defendant driven a DNA car without obtaining a driver's license in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.168% in the 1km section from the city gate near the city Don-dong, Busan, to the front intersection, regardless of the 3rdhoho-dong located in the same Gu Don-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver who is placed in the main place, investigation report (report on the situation of the driver who is placed in the main place), report on detection of the driver who is placed in the main place

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (report attached to the same type of summary order, such as a copy thereof), each summary order, and the application of statutes governing the judgment;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be taken into consideration in favor of the people in mind):

1. An order to attend a lecture or an order to provide community service under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's main record of sentencing is not less light, and that the defendant has a same criminal record including suspended sentence, several times, etc.

However, there was a conclusive intention to drive drinking, since the defendant's acknowledgement of facts charged is seriously against the defendant, and was crackdownd on the invasion, and there was a conclusive intention to drive drinking.

The fact that it is difficult to conclude is favorable circumstances.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, means and results of crimes, and various sentencing conditions in the trial process of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, are considered as the order.