Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On July 10, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million at the Seoul Western District Court, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on October 31, 2003, a summary order of KRW 5 million was issued by the 31st Army Military Court at the 31st Army, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 01:30 on January 16, 2020, the Defendant driven an E rocketing car with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.181% in the 3km section from the front of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si B to the front of the D stations in the D stations in the ethic City C from the 3km section to the roads of the D stations in the ethic City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Before judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of summary order-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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 provisional payment order is that the defendant re-offendered despite the fact that he had been punished twice due to drunk driving, the fact that a traffic accident occurred while drunk driving is disadvantageous to the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant is recognized and seriously against the defendant, while the above drinking prior to the punishment of a fine in 2003 and 2008, the criminal records of the above drinking prior to the punishment of a fine in 2003 and 2008, the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment after the 2008, physical damage only occurred due to a traffic accident, and the fact that the defendant supported his family are considered as favorable to the defendant, and all other factors of sentencing in the records of this case are considered as ordered as ordered.