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

[criminal power] On January 15, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from an Ansan District Court branch on January 15, 2009. On December 23, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for the same crime in the same court.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 25, 2020, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.044% of blood alcohol content, driven a coos car under the influence of alcohol at around 22:31, driving a section of approximately 100 meters from the street in front of the Sinsking-dong at Sinsking-si to the street in front of the D Hospital at Sinsking-si.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the results of the drinking driving control, and a place of drinking output;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty for a crime;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act states that the defendant asserts mental and physical disability caused by a yellow disorder, but in light of the application written by the defendant on May 6, 2020, the background and circumstances of drunk driving recorded in the records of the instant case, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things at the time or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion is not acceptable). The reason for sentencing is that the defendant had been punished twice due to a drunk driving or a fine, even though he had the history of punishment for a drunk driving, it is highly likely to criticize the defendant. However, even though the above drinking prior to the above drinking was the one prior to the year 2010, the drinking alcohol level of the defendant was not so high, and the reason why the drinking alcohol level (0.044%) of the defendant was not so high, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, including the distance of driving