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

On August 25, 2020, at around 01:55, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.216% of alcohol level 0.20%, and the Defendant driven D Eccoo-car from the front of a cafeteria located in the Seo-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon to the front of the Contracting State located in Daejeon Jung-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. E written statement (the occurrence of traffic accidents);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a traffic accident report (1) (2), a photograph at the scene of an accident, a breath measurement photograph, a statement on the circumstances of a drinking driver, a report on detection of a drinking driver, a report on the scene of an damaged vehicle, an on-site photograph of the damaged vehicle, an investigation report on the vehicle whistle-

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (3) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order requires a punishment corresponding to the crime that may cause serious damage to another person's life, body and property.

In 205, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been punished once due to drinking driving, and at the same time, there is a high possibility of criticism.

At the time of committing a crime, the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant is very high, and the driving distance is also long, and it is not easy for the defendant to cause physical damage resulting from a traffic accident while driving a drunk.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize the crime of this case and to reflect his mistake.

In addition, there was no personal injury due to the instant crime, and there was material damage, but the degree of damage was insignificant, so the victim was not required to repair it.

On the other hand, the defendant's violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2005 and in 2009.