If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 10, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million from the Ulsan District Court to a fine of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on May 13, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 7 million from the same court due to the same crime.

Around 12:20 on February 8, 2020, the Defendant driven a two-wheeled vehicle ECA110B while under the influence of about 300 meters in front of D secondary schools located in Ulsan-si B-gu from Ulsan-si to C without a motorcycle driver's license for about 0.071%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Registers of notification of the results of the control of drinking driving, reports on the state of drinking drivers' standing and reports on investigation reports;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, repeated statements, and application of each summary order statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 2 of Article 154 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

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 of the provisional payment order is that the defendant committed each of the instant crimes, even though he had the record of punishment four times for drunk driving, which led to the occurrence of traffic accidents by realizing the defendant's without a license and the risk of drunk driving, the defendant was aware that he had been driving after drinking. However, in light of the blood alcohol concentration at the time, the defendant's last time for drinking, the circumstances of the accident, etc., it seems that the defendant was sufficiently aware that he had not been fully solved at that time when considering the blood alcohol concentration, the defendant's drinking level at that time, the fact that there was no time difference between the previous conviction of the defendant's judgment, the fact that the defendant was recognized and disposed of the vehicle, the fact that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the motive, circumstance, method, and method of the crime.