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

On May 28, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, at around 22:32 on October 15, 2019, the Defendant driven an E-A-hurd-hurd-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

As a result, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the situation of a drinking driver, report on the situation of a drinking driving, and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiries, such as criminal records, etc., investigation reports, and copies of summary orders;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) has a record of being punished once due to drinking under unfavorable circumstances; the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is not higher than 0.031%; the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is confession and reflect; the driving distance is shorter; the defendant was discovered while driving at night after drinking alcohol at the point of occupation; and the defendant was found to have no criminal record of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor or heavier; after considering favorable circumstances, the defendant's discretionary mitigation is deemed to have been excessive punishment and the sentence is determined as ordered.