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

[Criminal Power] On January 13, 2011, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On September 28, 2019, around 06:20 on September 28, 2019, the Defendant driven C-II cargo vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 1.5 km from the front road of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, to the front road of the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, with a blood alcohol content of about 0.049%.

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. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment to summary orders of the same kind A), and application of a copy of summary orders by statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons for discretionary mitigation”), which is favorable to the defendant,

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

1. Although there was a record of being punished for drunk driving prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the fact that the motor vehicle was driven under the influence of alcohol and its quality is not good, in light of the frequency, time, contents, etc. of the same criminal power, and the possibility of criticism is not easy, and the defendant appears to be disadvantageous to the defendant, or the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is not high at the time of committing the crime, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is not high, and it appears that the previous day of this case was controlled due to the prior day after drinking and driving the motor vehicle before the after diving, and that there was no previous conviction for more than eight years since January 201, and support the child by neglect and divorce after divorce.