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

On March 13, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million by the Incheon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and a summary order of KRW 4 million by the same court on February 4, 2010.

On December 1, 2016, the Defendant driven a BM5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.069% during blood even though he/she had a history of driving two or more times as above, and proceeded with approximately 6 km from the long-term Dong in Kimpo-si to the Incheon Seo-gu inspection team to the 841-day road in Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, investigation reports (a confirmation before and after the driving of a suspect's drinking), and copies of summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include not only two kinds of criminal records, but also a number of criminal records violating the Road Traffic Act, including the criminal records of the same kind of crime. On January 22, 2016, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced a two-year suspended sentence to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court, which became final and conclusive on May 12, 2016, and sentenced on May 12, 2016, which led to the crime of this case where a vehicle is driven under the influence of alcohol, and the crime of this case is very poor. However, even if the defendant was found to have committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol, the defendant was found to have been mistakenly driven because he was judged to have followed several hours after he was tried to go through a short time. The situation that the defendant should support the child and children of this case under the economic income of the defendant after the divorce with the former husband, and the situation that he was unable to repeat this type by judgment.