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

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 7, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of three million won from the Suwon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the summary order of a fine of three million won from the Seoul Northern District Court on January 4, 2008.

At around 01:00 on July 6, 2012, the Defendant driven C rocketing car with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.14% without obtaining a driver’s license in the section of approximately 8-5 meters on the street of Suwon-gu, Suwon-dong No. 8-5, and at approximately 0.14%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A driver’s license register, a report on dact-making and a drinking measurement and output paper, a driver’s license, a report on the situation of the driver’s license, an investigation report (Evidence Nos. 14, 15, 18), and a

1. Previous records: Criminal records, etc. and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of inquiry reports and investigation reports (verification of the same type A of suspect);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 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 of the provisional payment order [the applicable sentencing range] Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition clause of drunk driving twice or more for the purpose of preventing the drunk driving which threatens the safety of the road traffic from being able to cause serious harm and causing a high possibility of criticism shall be punished, and that the person who has violated the prohibition clause of drunk driving twice or more shall be punished more strictly, and the defendant commits the crime of this case in this case even though he had been punished three times due to drunk driving and one time due to refusal of taking a alcohol test, and the degree of the defendant's taking a alcohol (0.144%) at the time of this case is not low.