도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On June 16, 2011, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on March 8, 2012, the same court received a summary order of KRW 7 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
At around 11:20 on October 17, 2019, the Defendant driven a B-ro car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.092% from the section of approximately 800 meters to the entrance three-distance road of Pyeongtaek-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, D-gu, D-si, D-si, D-si, D-si, D-si, D-si, D-si, D-si, D-si.
As a result, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition of drunk driving twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol;
1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;
1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, application of summary order-related 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. The defendant, prior to the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act.
Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol content 0.092% by blood alcohol concentration in the second blood.
The possibility of criticism is high in that the defendant committed the above crime even though he was a public official.
However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant was able to drive a motor vehicle to move into his own house for the purpose of medication (the defendant suffers from the type 2 urine disease). The defendant is aware that the previous urgical alcohol was flaged (the report on the state of urging driving, it is stated that the defendant's speech and walking conditions are good at the time of detection of drunk driving).