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 April 4, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Suwon District Court to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million as a fine at the Seoul Eastern District Court on January 28, 201.

On July 19, 2012, at around 23:38, the Defendant driven a Dac EX-L car while under the influence of 0.080% of blood alcohol content without obtaining a driver's license from around 100 meters from the Do near the Do near the Mac-gu Mademicgic Station at Sungnam-si to the road front of the Radar Scamba Holdings, located in the same 4789.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report, report on the situation of a drinking driver, inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, and report on the status of a drinking driver, and the statement of his/her status;

1. Investigation report on driver's license and investigation report (report on the situation of driver's licenseless driving);

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of driving sound), subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the same Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

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 under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and order to attend a lecture is to be strict punishment in that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been sentenced three times to a fine for violating the Road Traffic Act, including the previous convictions in the above judgment, even though he had been sentenced three times under the influence of a license.

However, the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, the fact that the defendant has no other criminal records is considered as favorable to the defendant, and all of the sentencing factors shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime.