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

[Violation Power] On October 29, 2014, the Defendant was subject to a disposition to forward juvenile protection cases by violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office on October 29, 2014. On March 18, 2015, the Seoul Family Court decided to take a protective disposition.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 04:30 on June 13, 2020, the Defendant driven a e-benz car under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.119% from the Do in front of “C” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul to the front of the same Gu D at approximately 600 meters.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and an appraisal report on the record of the measurement of drinking;

1. Control note;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Previous records before ruling: 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. In light of the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order [the scope of sentencing] 10,000,000 won or more from 20,000 won to 10,000 won (Pronouncement decision] fine 10,000,000 won, the Defendant already committed the instant drunk driving even though he had the record of being subject to juvenile protective disposition on several occasions due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to a non-licensed driving or a drunk driving, and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration is considerably high, the Defendant’s criminal liability is not somewhat weak.

However, there are various arguments in the present case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, details and motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., that the Defendant’s mistake is broken down and reflected as a social first-class student, that is, the first-class offender who has no record of criminal punishment, and that the driving of the present case does not lead to the occurrence of traffic accident due to the pertinent drinking driving, etc.