If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

[criminal power] On March 31, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeju District Court. On April 10, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeju District Court on April 10, 2009, and on September 29, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeju District Court on September 29, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 7, 201, and is currently under the suspended sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 26, 2013, around 20:45, the Defendant driven a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol of about 5 meters, without a motorcycle driver’s license, at the section of approximately 0.167% of alcohol level, from around the convenience store in the Hando-Eup, the Jeju-si, the GS25 City, to the front day of the same cafeteria’s “horizontal” restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of a driver, report on the circumstances of a driver, report on the circumstances of a driver without a license, and related photographs;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous records: References to criminal records and investigation reports (former records and attachment of judgment) shall apply to statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 2 of Article 154 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a punishment);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order had a record of being punished for the same kind of crime several times, and in particular, even during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to drunk driving, etc., the case was committed in this case, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant case was very high to 0.167%, the criminal liability of the Defendant is strictly imposed on the Defendant.