If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

[criminal power] On November 21, 2005, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Seoul Central District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On March 18, 2010, a summary order of KRW 3 million to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Seoul Central District Court on March 18, 201, and a summary order of KRW 4 million from the Seoul East East District Court on May 23, 201 to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 23, 2013, at around 01:00, the Defendant driven a CNAS car with approximately 10m of about 515-11m of the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol with 0.22% of alcohol content without a driver’s license, at the street above 515-10, the Defendant driven a CNAS car with approximately 10m of alcohol content.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report on the driver and the report on detection of the driver;

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of references to criminal records and investigation reports (report attached to summary orders of the same kind of crime) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order had a record of being punished by a fine on three occasions due to drunk driving, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime again, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was considerably high, the nature of the crime is not easy. However, the fact that the Defendant was at the time of committing the instant crime and misunderstanding, that the distance of the Defendant’s driving is very short, that the Defendant was a mother who raises two children while living in the workplace, and that he did not repeat the crime, and that the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc. are revealed in the record.