If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On July 16, 2012, around 23:02, the Defendant driven C Le-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-U-A-A-U-A-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U-A-U

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written assessment of blood alcohol and written report on detection of drinking drivers;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Articles 70 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 requires a strict punishment in that the defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.224% even though he/she had a history of criminal punishment for driving a motor vehicle once in the past.

However, the fact that the defendant has a depth of his mistake, the fact that the drinking driving is only the one sentenced to a fine once, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, etc. as shown in the arguments of this case shall be equally considered and the punishment shall be determined like the order.