Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 11, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) by the Eastern District Court of Seoul.

(Criminal facts) On September 19, 2020, the Defendant driven a D Abandoned Vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.074% from the front road of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si to the front road of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul-si, to about 40 meters.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The protocol concerning the examination of suspect for the defendant's legal statement E;

1. One CD in the circumstances of driving at home, the statement of the circumstances of the driver at home, the investigation report (report on the situation of the driver at home), the notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol, internal investigation report, field photographs, investigation report (the summary of the case, etc.), and one CD in the CCTV for crime prevention;

1. Records of the judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history (A), and application of the Act and subordinate statutes on the A of the suspect's same history;

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following factors, such as favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment is that the defendant, as recorded in the record of the crime in the judgment of the court, once again driven the instant drinking, even though he had been subject to punishment one time due to drinking as stated in the judgment. The defendant, along with the alcohol concentration, driving distance, driving distance, driving background (which is relatively short of driving distance and is likely to lead to the instant crime in a relatively contingent manner to avoid fighting with workplace rent at a turn, has shown an attitude against the defendant's wrong and has not committed a second offense. The defendant has no other criminal history other than the driving power as stated in the judgment of the court, and has no other criminal history other than the driving force of the defendant, and has more than 10 years from the above crime, and is economically supported by a family member.