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

On April 11, 2002, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court”), and on December 9, 2008, issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime.

Although the Defendant had the record of violating the alcohol driving, on December 28, 2019, at around 02:51, the Defendant driven a DNA vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.066% in the section of about 1.2km from the mutual influorial parking lot in front of the kniver cafeteria-dong, Sinsi-dong, Singu, to C in the front road located in Sinung City B.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the state of state of drinking drivers, and notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving;

1. Drinkers;

1. Scenic photographs at the drinking control site;

1. Previouss before judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, references to criminal records, amounts of dispositions and results of confirmation;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose a penalty: Selection of a fine;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order leads to the second offense of drunk driving for the reason of sentencing is highly likely to be subject to criticism.

However, the previous punishment power has long been long, and the same degree of punishment shall be determined in consideration of other similar cases such as punishment precedents.