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

On August 6, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a summary order of 1.5 million won for the same crime in the same court on August 3, 2009, respectively. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2.5 million won for the same crime in the same court.

On February 9, 2020, at around 01:25, the Defendant driven a Daming car without obtaining a driver’s license in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.163% from the 3km section from the front side of the “Camina Bank” in the Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun B to the 774th roads of the same military service.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, investigation reports, summary orders attached thereto, application of statutes and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment prescribed for a violation of each Road Traffic Act at the time of marketing and the punishment heavier than that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had a record of multiple times or punishment due to drinking driving in the past, and it is recognized that the nature of the instant crime is not good.

However, the fact that the defendant has recognized his mistake, there are family members to support the defendant, the circumstances where the crime of this case was discovered, the degree of drinking, and the drinking driving.