Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

In the Daegu District Court on June 30, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million from the Daegu District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the fluence driving), and the summary order of KRW 5 million from the Daegu District Court on February 24, 2017 to the charge of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the fluence measurement).

On February 28, 2020, the Defendant driven DNS car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.161% from the Do in front of the “C” located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Donsan-si to the upper Donsan-si Road, to the village and the tunnel of the village.

As a result, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving or drinking refusal twice or more.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reports on the statement of the situation of a drinking driver, and photographs taken over each time as a result of the control of drinking driving (on the spot);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, replys to criminal records, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution investigation report (verification of the same kind of force);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty for a crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order had two times the history of punishment for drunk driving under Article 334(1) of the same Act, the current Road Traffic Act, which has greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment to eradicate harmful effects caused by drinking driving, driving a vehicle on an expressway after driving the vehicle in a state where the license is considerably more advanced than the revocation criteria, and furthermore, in full view of the fact that all citizens, as the rapid spread of viruses in Daegu and North Korea region, are driving the vehicle in a state where they voluntarily refrain from drinking driving in the “social distance keeping” and are expected to drive the vehicle in a state where they voluntarily refrain from drinking driving in light of character and conduct, it cannot be deemed that the liability for the crime is somewhat weak, and in light of character and conduct, the risk of repeating the crime is very very very very very rough and thus, it is necessary to warn the vehicle as a result of this regulation.