Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 14,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 16, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court.

Nevertheless, on July 4, 2020, the defendant asserted that the defendant's defense counsel's departure and driving distance from the place of departure and driving distance of the defendant are different from the above criminal facts in light of the defendant's statement, which is the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, on July 4, 2020, at around 00:30% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.206%, and the defendant was under the influence of alcohol level at around 291, the water level of 10km in front of the Suwon bus terminal located in the Suwon bus terminal located in the Suwon bus site in the area of Suwon City, but the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the departure and driving distance of the defendant are different from the above criminal facts. However, according to the report on the circumstance of the driver-driving and notification of the result of

CM5 Motor Vehicles was driven by SM5.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition clause of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the report on circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and the control results of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in its ruling: Criminal records (A), investigation reports (Attachment to a summary order of the same attached power), - The summary order of 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 5159, - the summary order of the Chuncheon District Court 2003 High Court 2003 High Court 9663 shall apply;

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. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order had a record of being punished for driving under influence of alcohol, the driving of the instant case was done under the influence of alcohol, and considering the risk of drinking driving to many and unspecified persons and the purport of the amendment of the Act increased by statutory penalty, the quality of the relevant crime is not weak.

However, it is necessary to consider the fact that the defendant is led to confession and reflect, and that there is no previous conviction in excess of the fine.