When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

[criminal history] On August 25, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million due to a violation of road traffic law (drinking) at the Jung-gu District Court on August 25, 2008. On September 27, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million due to the same crime in the same court.

[Criminal Facts] On October 8, 2016, the Defendant driven a G DNA car while under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.05% of alcohol content in blood, from the front of D to the F cafeteria parking lot in E, Namyang-si around 03:02, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving, investigation report, report on the circumstances of driving on the main driver, notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol, investigation report (the above dmark), and on-site photographs of the main driver;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of investigation reports (Attachment to decisions on driving the same kind of drinking alcohol);

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the issue of the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that although the defendant had a little alcohol and driven a vehicle, the defendant had a second alcohol after driving, the second alcohol was measured after about 86 minutes from the time when the first alcohol was finished, and the second alcohol was measured after about 36 minutes from the time when the second alcohol was finished, so the result of the measurement cannot be deemed to be the blood alcohol concentration at the time when the defendant conducted a alcohol measurement because it is unclear whether the blood alcohol concentration at the time when the defendant conducted a alcohol measurement, or whether it was a mouth, and therefore the result of the measurement cannot be deemed to be the blood alcohol concentration at the time when the defendant was driven. Therefore, the defendant did not drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol more than 0.05%.

When there is an interval between the time and the measuring point of alcohol concentration in the blood and the time of the measurement, and at that time, the blood alcohol concentration seems to increase.

(b) if any;