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 May 30, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court's Eunpyeong site, and on September 23, 2008, sentenced a fine of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Pyeongtaek District Court's Eunpyeong site, and received a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court's Pyeongtaek District Court's site on November 9, 2009.

1. Around November 20, 2014, the Defendant driven a 50-meter 5-197% alcohol concentration at the section of approximately 300 meters from the 300-meter distance from the 6-way road at Ansan-si to the 58-way road at Ansan-si, on November 2014.

2. The Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, without having subscribed to mandatory insurance at the time and place set forth in the above 1.1., driving the Defendant’s non-registered forest VS 125CC.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the circumstances of the driver, report on the detection of the driver, and report on the driver;

1. Mandatory insurance policies;

1. Records before judgment: Application of inquiries about criminal records, etc. and a copy of each summary order;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (the point of operating an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

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

1. In light of the fact that the defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, has three times the history of punishment for driving under the same kind of drinking driving, and the defendant drives an Oral boom which has not been covered by mandatory insurance in a considerable state of drinking, the crime liability is unlimited, but the defendant acknowledges the facts charged in this case and reflects his mistake, and again he does not drive under the influence of drinking.