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 April 23, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act by the Gwangju District Court.

On December 13, 2019, at around 23:18, the Defendant driven a DCo-sports car from around 2 km to the entrance road of the Naju-dong located in the same City/Do from the street in front of the restaurant of “C” in “C” to the Naju-dong, while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.121% of alcohol level.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a summary order;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant was punished as a drunk driving, and the drinking water in this case is not low, so the possibility of criticism and social risks are high.

However, a fine shall be imposed on a defendant in consideration of the fact that there are circumstances to consider the process of committing the instant crime, the gap between the criminal record of drunk driving and the date of the instant crime, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment heavier than imprisonment.

The amount of the fine shall be determined as the order within the scope of the punishment after the discretionary mitigation is made in consideration of the above sentencing factors favorable to the defendant.