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

[Criminal Power] On April 30, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act by the Daegu District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 02:00 on April 27, 2020, the Defendant driven a C low-speed car at around 3 meters while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.201% at the hotel parking lot B in Busan Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The results of inquiry, investigation reports (Attachment of the same kind of power), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the summary order;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of this case to which the sentencing criteria are applied.

2. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission, circumstances after the commission of the commission of the commission, etc.; and (b) the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case:

The defendant, even though he had a record of being punished for a drunk driving, was driving under the influence of alcohol again after the enforcement of the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory penalty.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is 0.201% higher than the revocation standard.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant is against the defendant, recognizing the crime of this case.

After being sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the defendant has a record of criminal punishment for not less than ten years prior to the crime of this case.