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

On March 2, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Seoul Northern District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on May 26, 2009, a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act was issued by the Suwon District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, around 00:01 on July 21, 201, under the influence of alcohol level of 0.158%, the Defendant driven a B windows-type car and proceeded with approximately 500 meters from the B windows-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon to the roads front of the Geumcheon-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Seoul.

Therefore, even though the Defendant violated the prohibition on drinking under the Road Traffic Act more than twice, he again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the relevant provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. A previous conviction: An inquiry letter, each previous disposition, a report on confirmation of results, and a copy of the summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the order of provisional payment is that the defendant is less than that of the crime in this case where he drives under the influence of alcohol two times, even though he had the same criminal records as the previous crime. However, the defendant is not a substitute driver even though he is under the influence of alcohol, and there are circumstances where the substitute driver cannot easily find it out because he was out of the place, so that he was a driver to move to a place where he can easily see, it does not reach a violation of other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the driving distance is shorter, the driving distance is too short, and the defendant does not repeat the crime, such as selling the vehicle in this case.