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

[Criminal Power] On September 11, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million at the Seoul Eastern District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On August 23, 2019, around 02:25, the Defendant: (a) placed the one-story parking lot, which was parked in the “D high-point parking lot” managed by the victim C, who is a security personnel in Ansan-si, a member B, in his/her possession; and (b) invaded the building inside the parking lot and managed by the victim.

2. Around August 23, 2019, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) driven a motor vehicle in Ecohn with alcohol content of about 0.115% from the section of approximately 200 meters to the front of the entrance of the parking lot from the 5th to the 1st floor, “D high-point parking lot” as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. A written consent to the collection of blood and a written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Report on the statement of the situation of a drinking driver, investigation report, and notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs, ctv photographs;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes governing the same type of summary orders;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant reflects the error, the defendant's proposal was proposed to deduct the vehicle parked in D, and the fact that the defendant was not a proxy driver at the time, etc.)

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