Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 17, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Daejeon District Court.

On August 1, 2020, around 07:14, the Defendant driven BMW car in the state of alcohol with approximately 5km alcohol concentration of 0.104% from the 5km section in blood, from the front of the trade influence in the Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Daejeon to the vicinity of the 449-1 dialogueed area.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving regulations not less than twice.

Defendant

In addition, since the defense counsel acknowledged the crime of this case and there is no possibility of infringing the right of defense, it shall be corrected to add it to the crime to clarify the purpose of the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Arrest report of the occurrence of the case, report of the situation of the driver who takes the main place, report of the situation of the driver who takes the main place, details of the crackdown, and notification of the result of the

1. The ledger of driver's licenses and photographs of the measurement of drinking once a vehicle is made;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (Attachment of a summary order of the same kind of force), application of summary order statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts and the selective punishment (in light of the danger and the seriousness of harmful effects of drinking driving, the degree of alcohol concentration during blood transfusion at the time, the previous record of the judgment, the driving distance, etc., the liability for the crime was unfasible, the mistake was unfasible, the depth of the mistake was unfasible, and the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the circumstances in which there was no previous record except for the previous record of the judgment, etc.);

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 concerning the order of provisional payment;