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 May 17, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeonju District Court. On December 24, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months by imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of bodily injury, etc. at the same court on December 24, 2010, and on November 16, 2011, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the sentence became final and conclusive on February 2, 2012, the sentence of the suspended sentence was invalidated, and the parole period was expired on September 28, 2012 in the Jeonju Prison.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 4, 2014, from around 00:15 to 00:55 on the same day, the Defendant driven D observer car from approximately 200 meters away from the parking lot to the 1 side of the same apartment unit after having been under the influence of alcohol content of 0.223%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Investigation reports (related to the application of the Tramark);

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (report attached to judgments, etc.);

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. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished four times due to drunk driving, committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime for the same kind of crime, and the drinking water level was only 0.223%, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, that the vehicle was parked after the defendant arrived at his residence by proxy driving, and that the distance of drinking driving is relatively short, and that the defendant's wife and his workplace rent wanted to take the defendant's preference to the defendant, it is ordered to do so.