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

The Defendant is a person who driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on August 11, 2008 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 1 million on September 24, 2008 at the Sungnam branch support of the Suwon branch of the Suwon branch of the Suwon branch). A person who driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on May 1, 2018 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 3 million at the Suwon branch of the Suwon branch of the Republic of Korea on July 4, 2018), and violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On June 3, 2018, the Defendant stated the BM5 car in the indictment for about 1m as Defendant’s driving distance is about 3m, while under the influence of alcohol of about 0.111% in the street in front of the exit of 273 (SM5 car in the direction of 0.11% in blood, i.e., the 3m from the beginning of the exit of 273 (New-dong), i.e., the Defendant’s driving distance at around 01:05. However, in light of the records, the Defendant’s driving distance at around 3m is not deemed to reach the 3m, and thus, it is recognized as such.

Along-term driver had been driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. A report on internal investigation, a field photograph of control, and a photograph of a black fluor, which has been submitted by a suspect A, by capturing up;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (a report on confirmation of the same record of driving the suspect under influence of alcohol) statute;

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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant, who has been able to drive a second alcohol not less than twice, has driven a second alcohol, and the crime of this case is not less than the nature of the crime, but not less than the value of the concentration of alcohol in blood due to the drinking in this case, and the defendant, in May 2018, was found to have driven a second alcohol on the same month as he had driven a second alcohol. It is highly likely to criticize.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the result theory is.