A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[2] On October 2, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 to a fine for a violation of road traffic law (drinking) at the Daejeon District Court on September 10, 2012, which was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 5 million to a fine of KRW 5 million for a violation of road traffic law (drinking) at the Daejeon District Court on September 10, 201, and on March 18, 2016, the Daejeon District Court issued a summary order of KRW 10,000 to a fine of KRW 10,000 to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and a violation of Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Daejeon District Court on March 26, 2016, and violated the provision on the prohibition of drinking

[2] On January 24, 2017, the Defendant driven an Epoter 2 truck under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.105% while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license in the section around about 20 meters near the D cafeteria in the middle-gu Daejeon, Daejeon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiry into the results of crackdown on driving of alcohol, a written report on the details of crackdown, a statement of the situation of the driver's license, the ledger of driver's license, and a report on the situation of driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the inquiry report and investigation report (report attached to the same type of judgment, etc.);

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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of small amount is that the Defendant, who led to the instant crime, led to the confession of the instant crime, and that the Defendant is going against the prevention of recurrence by selling a vehicle after the instant case, etc., are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant seems to lack the awareness of the crime of drinking driving, such as committing the instant crime again during the period of probation without being aware of the history of punishment, including a suspended sentence, due to drinking driving, and the instant case.