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

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 1, 2008, the Defendant received a fine of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from Daejeon District Court.

On July 16, 2020, at around 22:03, the Defendant driven a D-to-purgn vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.053% in the front of the Seo-gu Daejeon District, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (Seoul District Court Decision 200:1Da1533, Jun. 16, 2020.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Criminal place, notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving, inquiry into the results thereof, report on the circumstantial statements of drinking drivers, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of drinking drivers);

1. The register of driver's licenses, and making inquiries into the car register;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment of a summary order of the same kind attached), and application of summary order statutes;

1. Article 148-2(1) and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act applicable to criminal facts, the choice of a fine (a) (a normal conditions favorable to the defendant, such as the crime in light of the danger and seriousness of harm caused by drinking driving, and the circumstances in which the previous conviction of the same kind of fine, other than the previous conviction in the judgment, was found to be disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the crime, in light of the circumstances in which the criminal records of the same kind of fine is heavy and potential to be subject to criticism once more, etc., but the mistake is depth, and the degree of blood alcohol concentration at the time is not relatively high, and the multiple accidents did not occur; the same criminal records including the previous conviction in the judgment, are deemed to have been entirely invalidated, and the interval between the criminal crimes

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;