If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On September 25, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on September 25, 2006, and on November 22, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,00,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On August 24, 2015, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.056% during blood transfusion around 23:3 on August 24, 2015, driven C rocketing car at approximately 100 meters from the vicinity of the shooting distance of the Gun apartment in Gangnam-gu Seoul to the same wing-ro 314-way.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of operation under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the said provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Recording of statements in the witness examination protocol regarding witness E;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on driving drinking (excluding the part of defendant's statement);

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. An explanatory note;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of each summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) (excluding punishment) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that even though the Defendant requested the drinking water prior to the measurement of drinking, the police officer did not ask for the drinking water, and that even though the Defendant’s female-friendly group had taken the drinking water with the Defendant’s death, the police officer prevented the Defendant from taking the drinking water and conducted a breatheous measurement, so the measured drinking water cannot be acknowledged.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the control police officer is the defendant according to the ordinary procedure regarding alcohol that may remain in the drafting of the defendant at the time of the instant control.