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

On July 25, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 from the Suwon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, at around 22:31 on December 23, 2019, the Defendant driven B Ap-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-S

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, replys, and application of summary orders issued by Suwon District Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision 29834, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Even though there was a record of punishment several times for the reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime without any special reason is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine due to the same crime is favorable to the defendant.

Other factors of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, results and circumstances of the defendant, etc., shall be determined as per Disposition.