If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

[criminal power] On March 17, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on March 17, 201. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime from the Seocheon Branch of the Daejeon District Court on September 10, 201, and on May 13, 2013, the Daejeon High Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime. On September 28, 2013, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence at the Chungcheong Detention House on September 28, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 29, 2015, at around 22:31, the Defendant driven D vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of about 10 meters from the front side of the parking lot for the Abandoned Motor Vehicle in the same city to the front side of the unpaid street in the same city.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control, and inquiry into the results of the drinking driving control;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is a criminal record who has been punished three times by a fine due to drunk driving, and committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was considerably high is unfavorable to the Defendant. Since September 2012, the Defendant did not have a criminal record of the same crime, and the Defendant did not have a criminal record of the same crime at the time of the instant case, which is favorable to the Defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be taken into consideration and the sentence as ordered.