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

On May 8, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Incheon District Court, and on February 24, 2009, a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for the same crime was issued from the support of Suwon Frigwon, the Suwon Frigwon, to the same crime.

On July 17, 2016, at around 23:44, the Defendant driven C K5 cars while under the influence of alcohol content of at least 0.050% in a distance of about 500 meters from the front day of the Scho-dong Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu Seoul, to the front day of distribution of the same Gu distribution road.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Attachment of a statement on the circumstances of the driver placed at home;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and of the Acts and subordinate statutes attached to the previous summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant’s final drinking time (round July 17, 2016: 23:15) and drinking time (round July 17, 2016: 23:44), both of the hours of driving and the hours of alcohol measurement (round July 17, 2016: (a) the Defendant’s defense counsel’s written opinion presented by his/her defense counsel, stated that the Defendant’s “the time of driving, namely, the time when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, is indicated as around 23:20, July 17, 2016; and (b) the interval between the time of driving and the time of alcohol measurement is indicated as about 29 minutes); and (c) the Defendant’s alcohol concentration among the blood alcohol at the time of driving cannot be deemed as 0.50%.

2. The above assertion was based on the premise that there was an interval between the Defendant’s driving time and the drinking measurement time of the Defendant, and as so alleged, the time when the Defendant was exposed to the crackdown on drinking on July 17, 2016 or when the time when the Defendant was exposed to the crackdown on drinking was around July 23:20.