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

[criminal power] On May 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million at the Changwon District Court for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 5 million at the same court on February 18, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 21:30 on January 17, 2013, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a DNA liquid sports vehicle in the area of about 10 km from the sexual dust industry in the area of 930 percent in the Hawon-si, Changwon-si, Mawon-si, and in the area of the Hoban Highway located in the Hoban-si, Seowon-si, Changwon-si, Mawon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written report from an employee of an employer;

1. The ledger of driver's licenses;

1. Records before judgment: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (a) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act of the Act on Probation and Order to Attend Education is that the Defendant has repeatedly committed the same offense without being aware of five times or more due to drinking driving since 2005 without being aware of the fact that he or she had been punished five times or more due to drinking driving. However, it is clear that he or she is against his or her mistake, such as scrapping of his or her own car, etc., his or her intention to eradicate drinking driving, and his or her relative and son wanting to be able to monitor and supervise the Defendant’s drinking driving in the future, and that the Defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine.