Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who, while under the influence of alcohol on June 11, 201, drives a motor vehicle and has violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on December 5, 201 (a summary order of KRW 7 million is issued at the Sungnam branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on December 15, 201), while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on December 5, 2014.

On October 22, 2017, the Defendant driven C K7 car from the Home flusing Part in the Suwon-gu transfer Handbro to the same water source viewing road, under the influence of alcohol content of 0.058% among the blood transfusion around 01:13, the Defendant driven C K7 car from the Home flusing part in the Suwon-gu transfer Dong to the same water source viewing.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the factual basis is recognized, and the power of which the suspension of indictment is suspended shall not constitute a violation of Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act);

1. Statement report on the situation of the driver at the main place and report on the situation of the driver at the main place;

1. Notification of records of drinking alcohol measurement and the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, inquiry report, and investigation report (the previous confirmation of the past records), such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Judgment on the defense counsel's assertion] of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (see Article 334(1)] The defense counsel does not constitute "where Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act is violated on at least two occasions, since the records of the suspension of indictment by the prosecutor do not undergo a court's confirmation of facts."

The argument is asserted.

However, in the literal interpretation of Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, the phrase “in the case of a violation of Article 44(1) on at least two occasions” does not have any ground to limit the case where a final judgment of conviction was rendered, and ② “in the case of a violation of Article 44(1) on at least two occasions,” the phrase “in the case of a violation of Article 44(1)” had already existed the provision on the revocation or suspension of a driver’s license, which is an administrative disposition.