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

[Criminal Power] On November 29, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million at the Daejeon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 10, 2019, at around 23:15, the Defendant driven a vehicle B in the state of alcohol with approximately 2 km alcohol concentration of 0.145% from the front of the restaurant located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon to the front of the orchard, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

As a result, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition on driving motor vehicles, etc. more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Notification of the results of the control of drinking driving, inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, report on the state of drinking drivers, and making an inquiry into the enemy;

1. Investigation report (Report on the status of an employee);

1. Before judgment: Application of the summary order, criminal records, etc. (A)-related Acts and subordinate statutes, Daejeon District Court Order No. 2010 high-ranking 17049, and criminal records;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order requires a punishment corresponding to the crime that may cause serious damage to another person's life, body and property.

Although there has been a history of punishment once due to drinking driving, the defendant is driving while under the influence of alcohol, and the quality of the crime and the circumstances are not somewhat weak.

The blood alcohol level at the time of drinking driving is high, and the distance of driving is not short.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake.

In this case, there was no personal injury due to the crime of this case, and the defendant seems to have been well-known and satisfed since 2010.

The facts constituting the crime of the defendant.