Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 15, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of 700,000 won of a fine for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), on May 22, 2009, a summary order of 2 million won of a fine at the Seoul Eastern District Court as the same crime, and on September 17, 2015, a summary order of 7 million won of a fine was issued at the Jungbu District Court for the same crime, and on April 28, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime.

Although the Defendant had been punished twice or more due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as above, on August 28, 2018, the Defendant driven a scoo-dong scoo on the section of about 100 meters of alcohol concentration from the road of 283 Don-ri, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Seoul, to the road of 7 Don-ro, the head of the Eup/Myeonn-gu, Namyang-si, Seoul, about 100 meters of alcohol concentration from the road of 0.098% of alcohol concentration during blood. The summary of the evidence is the summary of the evidence.

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under the liquor:

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Photographs at the time of detection;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, text of judgment, and text of a summary order;

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 for the order of provisional payment have the record of being punished for driving under drinking several times as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment.

Nevertheless, since the driving of drinking in many times has been done, it should be criticized.

However, the electric scooter, which is the subject of this case, has not yet been widely known that the maximum speed was introduced into Korea with 15 km, and thus constitutes a motor vehicle, etc. subject to the prohibition of drinking, and its risk is relatively small.

Defendant

In addition, we do not recognize that one's act becomes a drinking driver.