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 September 29, 2006, the defendant has been sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Sung-nam branch of Suwon District Court.

Nevertheless, at around 22:28 on June 30, 2020, the Defendant driven a DNA car with the blood alcohol concentration of about 0.051% from the public parking lot located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si to the front road of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to approximately 5km in the area of about 0.051%.

As a result, the defendant, even though he had been punished for a drunk driving, has re-driving and violated it more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the occurrence of the case;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement, investigation report, and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Criminal history records, two copies of a summary order, two copies of a written judgment, one written decision not to institute a prosecution, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the crime of this case is that the defendant, who has a record of driving a drinking alcohol, drives a motor vehicle again, and the nature of the crime is not that of the latter.

The defendant has already been punished for being exposed to drunk driving, etc. four times.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and that the defendant was engaged in driving of this case under the circumstance that he was able to take into account the situation that the defendant was under the influence of taking care of drinking on the new wall on the same day of this case. The defendant's records of driving under the influence of drinking seems to have been more than 13 years since the date of the crime of this case, and all other factors such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and result, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime.