When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

【Criminal Power】 On May 12, 201, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million at the Incheon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2 million at the same court on May 27, 2011, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】 On November 14, 2018, the Defendant driven D Poter Cargo at a section of about 2 km from the front of the Defendant’s residence in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B apartment, and from the front of the Defendant’s residence in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, to the roads of the same Gu Pacific-dongamdo to the shooting distance, while under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.051%.

Accordingly, even though the defendant had been punished more than twice as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, he has driven a vehicle while under the influence of re-driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Records of the measuring instrument of drinking alcohol and field copies of the measuring instrument;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry report (A), investigation report (Attachment to a summary order related to the same kind of suspect's power), defendant, and defense counsel's assertion

1. Although the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.045% at the time of the initial measurement of alcohol level against the defendant at the time of the measurement of alcohol level, the result cannot be recognized since the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level was confirmed 0.051% while the police officers in charge repeatedly measure alcohol level while the defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.051%. Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have driven under the Road Traffic Act.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to view that the result of the measurement of drinking to the defendant was more than the punishment amount as 0.051% of blood alcohol level as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, and that the measurement was conducted in duplicate even when the above value was derived. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel was made.