도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five million won.
Where the above fine is not paid, one million won shall be converted into one day.
Punishment of the crime
On January 21, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on January 21, 2009; on August 17, 2012, from the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch, a fine of KRW 1,50,000 as a violation of the Road Traffic Act was issued; on October 26, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1,50,000, respectively; and on October 26, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months or 2 years of suspended execution.
On May 23, 2015, the Defendant, despite having had a history of drinking driving two or more times, driven BchipG automobiles in the state of alcohol with approximately KRW 2k alcohol concentration of about 0.130% from the section of approximately 2km from May 23, 2015 to the front road of the old Sin Sin Sin Sin-si Hyundai-dong Hyundai Motor Vehicle, at around 01:45.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle under consideration, and the statement on the state of standing of the motor vehicle under consideration;
1. Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (verification, etc. of the records of criminal records of the same kind of crime as a suspect), and application of three copies of written judgments;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2(2)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act regarding the selection of punishment, and the choice of a fine (after the judgment of the suspension of the above execution, it appears that the two children were supported with the wife without a previous conviction, and have lived faithfully with them; while returning home due to a substitute driving at the time of committing the crime, the police who was called to the scene after having requested the police to assist him/her, completed training and again called the defendant to go home again while driving his/her own while driving his/her own while driving the crime, and the police tried to go home again, but the judgment was immediately avoided by the police as soon as he/she was judged by the above police while driving the crime, and shows that his/her mistake was divided in depth with his/her
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;