Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 13, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Seoul Western District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on March 9, 2015, a summary order of KRW 5 million was issued from the Seoul Western District Court to a fine of KRW 5 million for the same crime.

On August 24, 2018, around 03:00, the Defendant driven Crocketing car while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.144% at the 2nd floor parking lot of B apartment apartment in Namyang-si, 2018.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

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

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

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

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. A previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (the previous confirmation thereof) statute;

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 reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, has twice the record of being punished by a fine due to drinking, but has also been driven by drinking, and thus, shall be subject to criticism.

The alcohol concentration in blood is also high.

However, the driving of this case is relatively short of the risk of driving and driving distance of drinking because the defendant returned home by using a substitute driving after drinking alcohol, but the substitute driving officer was driving while parking while parking outside the parking zone.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, means and results thereof, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case shall be comprehensively considered.