If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On May 25, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On April 29, 2020, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle in the direction of approximately 500 meters from the section of approximately 500 meters of blood alcohol concentration to the three-way distance from the DNA gas station in B around Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si., the Defendant driven a motor vehicle for E-witter cargo without obtaining a driver's license, in the direction of approximately 0.20 meters of alcohol concentration.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of summary order statutes attached thereto;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment prescribed for a violation of each Road Traffic Act at the time of marketing and the punishment heavier than that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The Defendant, on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times due to drunk driving. As such, the nature of the instant crime is not good, and the blood alcohol concentration is very high, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than the fine, the recent vehicle is presumed to have scrapped, and the risk of recidivism is presumed to be low, and the circumstances of the crime of this case, the degree of drinking, and drinking driving.