Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Attachment of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act] On March 7, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of indictment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor’s Office on March 7, 201, and Article 148-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act punish “any person who violates Article 44(1) or (2) not less than twice”. This is, as it is, punishable two times or more, and a final judgment of conviction is not required (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do11378, Nov. 15, 2018). The criminal facts of the Defendant committed / [Attachment] from the former Public Prosecutor’s Office around October 22, 2020 to the former Public Prosecutor’s Office at the same level from 50 meters in front of his/her alcohol level on the roads where he/she is under influence of 0.51% of alcohol among alcohol in Gwangju on the roads where he/she is under influence of Gwangju.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Previous convictions: Application of investigation reports (verification of suspect's records of driving alcohol)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020 and enforced on December 10, 2020) on criminal facts;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448, Apr. 1, 201)

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is highly likely to be criticized in that the defendant driving the second drinking, considering the fact that the drinking volume of this case was not higher than that of other cases, the defendant did not have any history of punishment in addition to the suspension of indictment due to drinking, and the fact that the defendant sells the vehicle of this case while breaking the error.

(2).