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

On January 8, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on the same day, and on April 21, 201, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime at the same court.

On April 21, 2016, the Defendant driven a C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-W-C-C-C-W-C-C-C-W-C-C-C-W-C-C-W-

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol, reporting on the situation of driving alcohol, and investigation report;

1. Part of the statement concerning the circumstances of driving at home; and

1. Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, investigation report (verification of driving force under drinking not less than twice) and statutes;

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant alleged that he was driving in the 1/2 poppy of the small liquor on the instant instant cup, and even though he was unable to bring about 0.064% alcohol concentration in blood, water was not provided enough to be able to be fluorized at the time of measurement at the time of measurement, and as he was fluorily under the influence of alcohol when he was in the packing of the mouth clean water containing alcohol ingredients, the Defendant was fluorily under the influence of alcohol and was fluorily under the influence of alcohol level of more than 0.05%.

In addition, even though blood collection was requested at the time, if blood collection was conducted by enforcement officers, it was higher in value and there was no need to take blood collection.

2. Determination.