Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On October 1, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws (drinking driving) at the Sungnam support center, which was issued a fine of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws. On October 21, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws (drinking driving) at the Sungnam support center.

[Criminal facts] Around March 22, 2018, the Defendant driven a DNA car in the state of alcohol alcohol of about 20km from around 02:38 to around the 498-ro Asan-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Seoul to the 498-ro, while driving a DNA car in the state of alcohol of about 0.054% in blood.

Accordingly, the defendant, who was punished more than twice by driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, once again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Inquiries about the results of regulating driving of drinking alcohol, the circumstantial report on drivers of drinking alcohol, and written confirmation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, investigation report (the same kind of force) and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 concerning the confinement in the workhouse [First of all, the defendant and his defense counsel may not exclude the possibility that the numerical value has been measured high due to remaining alcohol by continuously using the same bits.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this Court: ① the Defendant’s use of the vehicle appears to have no other person than the Defendant; ② the traffic control guidelines, which set forth the standards and procedures for the operation of the traffic police officer, provide that one motor vehicle for the measurement of drinking consumption per time for the measurement of drinking consumption is used; however, it is merely the internal guidelines of the police officer, even if it is merely a mere internal guidelines of the police officer, the traffic police officer did not observe the above contents.

Even if there are these reasons, the procedure for the measurement of drinking is illegal.