If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On June 20, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on August 8, 2012, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime.

On April 19, 2013, at around 23:50, the Defendant driven a Maz car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.094% without obtaining a driver’s license in a section of about 14 km from around the alcohol monopoly located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Sejong-gun to the front day of the business located in 57-9, the cultural site site for the Guang Changwon-gun, which is located in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gu. The Defendant driven a Maz car without obtaining a driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Report on detection of a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking;

1. Control note;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and Acts and subordinate statutes including investigation reports (Attachment to a summary order of the same kind of crime);

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to bear litigation costs

1. The defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that they drive a marina car without obtaining a driver's license at the time and place of crime as stated in the judgment of the defendant, but the drinking test against the defendant was conducted by the police officer without being notified of the summary of the crime, the reason for arrest, and the right to appoint a defense counsel under Article 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and was conducted by force without being given an opportunity to defend himself.