Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 5, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act and KRW 2 million as a fine in the same court on September 9, 2013.

On July 29, 2015, the Defendant driven CM7 car at a section of about 1 km to the front road in the vicinity of the Samsan-dong Tridong Non-distance, Ulsan-gu, Busan-do, 0.07% alcohol level, while under the influence of alcohol leveling around 22:07.07.

As a result, the Defendant, who violated the regulations prohibiting driving of alcohol more than twice, once again driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Recording of D statements in the third public trial records;

1. A written inquiry about the result of regulating drinking driving;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written request for appraisal;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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

1. Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bears the burden of litigation costs [the defendant and his/her defense counsel found the place where he/she is responsible for driving alcohol and found the place where he/she is responsible for driving alcohol, drinking a direction product containing the remaining alcohol ingredients, and drinking is high due to the direction-setting alcohol ingredients, and the defendant's drinking alone cannot make a drinking level above 0.05% of alcohol level. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court are as follows: (i) the defendant did not inform the police officer in charge at the time he/she is found to have taken the direction at the time of driving alcohol; (ii) the defendant stated the purport that he/she drank the direction-setting at the report on the circumstances of the driver who is responsible for driving alcohol (five pages of evidence record); and (iii) after regulating drinking, the defendant divided the drinking content into the Gu and the defendant.