[criminal power] On July 24, 2006, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million by the Seoul Northern District Court for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court and KRW 1.5 million by the Suwon District Court on June 27, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 1, 2020, at around 03:11, the Defendant driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.129% from the 1km section to the roads near Pyeongtaek-si located in Pyeongtaek-si to the roads near the same city apartment.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. and criminal investigation reports (verification of suspect driving and driving records without license) shall apply to statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. The sentencing of sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code for discretionary mitigation is determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all factors of sentencing as shown in the argument in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

The circumstances after committing the crime, such as having already been sentenced to a fine more than four times due to drinking driving, and having been sentenced to a fine more than two times due to driving without permission, which led to repeated driving without permission. Moreover, the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of detection is also low, and the police officer shows an extremely non-cooperative attitude, and the defendant seems to have a very weak sense of compliance with traffic regulations.