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

[criminal record] The date of driving under the influence of alcohol is June 30, 2020.

On September 22, 2020, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on September 2, 202.

[Criminal facts] Around July 23, 2020, the Defendant driven a DNA vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.100% from the 24km section from the roads near Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul to the front parking lot for B apartment C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant driven a DNA vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.10%.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement statement report on the situation of the driver who is placed in the main state, investigation report (the situation report of the driver who is placed in the main state), the case list and each internal investigation report;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: References to inquiries, investigation status, indictment, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal history;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 68(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment under Article 334(1) of the Act on the Criminal Procedure of the Order of Provisional Payment under Article 70(1) and Article 68(2) appears to have been seriously imprisoned by the Defendant again on the only month during which the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, and repeatedly under the influence of drinking. The amount of drinking in this case is reasonable, driving distance is 24 km, and the fact that the circumstances controlled by the report of 112 are poor, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant, are not leading to an accident, and the fact that the circumstances under which the Defendant was under the influence of drinking in this case, again under the circumstance of the previous indictment for the driving of drinking in this case, may be somewhat different from the circumstances under which the Defendant was under the influence of drinking in this case, and the previous summary order became final and conclusive, and thus, the profits of the prosecution in this case was subject to a consolidated trial at first instance.

The previous fine is more than the fine of this case.