Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On September 26, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court, and on December 24, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 6 months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on December 24, 2014. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 6 months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act on March 17, 2016, and the said suspended sentence became final and conclusive on March 17, 2016, and the sentence of the suspended sentence was paroled on December 23, 2016 and passed on January 14, 2017.

[2] On June 19, 2017, around 09:10, the Defendant driven a CSP car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.279% in blood at approximately 10m sections of the front road of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, summary order and text of judgment, and application of each Act and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention in the workhouse is that the Defendant committed a second offense even during the same repeated period as in the judgment of the court, and that the drinking volume of the instant case is high, etc., the Defendant’s responsibility is not minor.

However, the circumstance leading up to this case while the defendant was driving from a short distance in the parking lot in the previous year without the resolution of the deliberation of the previous day and the degree of drinking of this case can be taken into account. The defendant had no particular criminal history other than the past power, and has lived faithfully after the release, and the defendant is able to repent in depth of his mistake and dispose of the vehicle after this case.