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

On November 19, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million with a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on November 19, 201, and on July 8, 201, a summary order of KRW 2.5 million with the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on July 8, 201, and thus violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

On March 3, 2015, at around 22:50, the Defendant driven B car at a section of about 300 meters from the front road of the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the main store of the Suwon-si, the C&I, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.150% without a car driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the results of drinking control;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previouss before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and investigation reports (report on filing of summary orders)-related 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 an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order does not change the nature of the crime of this case where the defendant had been punished twice due to drinking without drinking, even though he had the record of being punished twice due to drinking without drinking. However, in light of the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against his depth, the defendant has to partially reduce the amount of fine determined by the summary order only once in this time in light of the time interval between the crime committed before and when the crime was committed, equity in sentencing with similar cases, etc.