Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On June 9, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court on the same day, and on April 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 2 years for imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, etc. in the same court on April 28, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 28th day of the

【Criminal Facts】

On July 28, 2013, at around 01:30, the Defendant driven a C-string vehicle at the section of approximately 500 meters in front of the “Salley” road located in the Dong-dong in the Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, in a state of alcohol of 0.213% of blood alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the status of a drinking driver, and the written report on the status of a drinking driver;

1. Requests for appraisal;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, reply reports (A), investigation reports (including copies of judgment, etc.);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty for a crime;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are as shown in the judgment below. In particular, it seems that there is no room for the Defendant to choose the other punishment in addition to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the offenses committed repeatedly during the period of suspension of drinking driving, and the same act as the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the offenses committed repeatedly during the period of suspension of drinking driving.

However, it seems difficult to accept a lawsuit as it is, however, that it is against the Defendant’s mistake, that there was no history other than twice before and after the judgment, and that it was difficult for fluorging the fluor in time to cover the alcohol residues he has the right at the time while operating a small simple drinking point, and that there seems to exist some circumstances for fluorging, and that there seems to exist flusiums suffering from brug disease, and that the Defendant supports alone, therefore, the Defendant is the case.