Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 13,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million at the Suwon District Court on the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the cambling) and was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the cambling) on two occasions.

On November 15, 2019, the Defendant driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.141% in a section of approximately two meters, by driving the said vehicle on the road by driving the D SP car at the front parking lot “C,” located within the KUADB, and again returning the said vehicle to the said parking lot.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Reporting on detection of violations of the Road Traffic Act, reporting on internal investigation, and photographs of scene;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement, investigation report, and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports (report on the confirmation of the same kind of power) and 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 reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant, who has a record of driving a drinking alcohol, drives a motor vehicle again, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, but not less than that of the blood alcohol concentration due to the drinking alcohol in this case.

The defendant has been punished for a fine because he/she was found to drive under drinking twice.

However, all other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, etc., are against the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case, short of the distance of the defendant's drunk driving, and 2004 among the records of the defendant's drunk driving, have passed more than 15 years since the date of the crime of this case.