Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 31, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of two million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on July 31, 2008, and on April 7, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of ten million won in the same court due to the same crime, etc. on two occasions.

Although the Defendant had been punished twice or more due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as seen above, on May 13, 2016, the Defendant driven a B SP-type car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.064% from blood around 00:43 on May 13, 2016, while driving the B SP-type car and driving it on the roads in front of the station in the Jeju-gu Jeju-gu Jeju Coast Guard to the roads in the same Gu C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a written inquiry, written investigation report (Attachment to the previous decisions and attached judgments), and a copy of the judgment attached thereto;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Criminal Procedure of the Provisional Payment Order is that the defendant committed the crime of this case where he drives under the influence of alcohol on two occasions due to driving of alcohol (a double one time is related to driving without mandatory insurance and without taking necessary measures), even though he had the record of one-time crime due to driving without a license, and the crime of this case where he drives under the influence of alcohol on one occasion. However, although the defendant committed the crime of this case, it is not good that the defendant committed the crime of this case. However, the defendant was found to have committed driving under the influence of alcohol on two occasions due to a mistake that he was punished under the influence of taking part in the bar in the form prepared to request employment after withdrawal from the workplace, and there was a relatively low amount of alcohol concentration in blood, not reaching a violation of other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and then his mistake is divided later.