If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On January 30, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Ulsan District Court on January 30, 201.

On August 24, 2019, at around 23:46, the Defendant driven a FK7 car at a section of about 200 meters from the front of the “E” restaurant located in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, along the influence of alcohol content of 0.074%.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal records, etc.;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, along with the sentencing circumstances of the Defendant.

3. Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant had been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol, but he again committed the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the crime is not less severe in light of the social harm and danger of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the possibility of criticism is considerable; the defendant's failure to comply with the legitimate investigation request of an investigative agency because his whereabouts are unknown after the control over the crime in this case; the defendant's act of committing the crime in favor of the defendant's depth and again did not stop the same crime; the distance of driving under the influence of alcohol is not long; the degree of blood alcohol concentration is not high; the crime in this case is relatively relatively relatively from the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol.