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

[criminal history] On July 3, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Incheon District Court, and on July 30, 2009, issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the Incheon District Court.

[Criminal facts] On October 14, 2017, the Defendant driven B rocketing car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.069% from approximately 100 meters away from the 6th day of the southwest-ro of Incheon Strengthening-gun, Incheon Strengthening-gun, to the road before the 383 Kung-gun, as the strengthening Eup of Incheon reinforced-gun.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of the driver who takes charge;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (report attached to a summary order of the same kind of suspect);

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include the previous convictions in the judgment, and the criminal defendant has six times of punishment as well as the criminal punishment for driving under drinking.

Considering the social risk of drinking driving, it is necessary to punish the criminal defendant's repeated drinking driving of drinking.

However, the defendant shows the form of recognizing and opposing the crime in this court.

The Defendant’s drinking volume did not reach an excessive degree, and there was no personal and material damage due to the instant crime.

The final records of punishment due to drinking driving are those of light in 2009, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine against the accused.

Defendant is ordinary.