Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] The Defendant received a summary order of 700,000 won of a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon Friwon on July 4, 2008, and received a summary order of 1 million won of a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon Friwon on February 19, 2009. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of 1 million won of a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon Friwon Friwon on December 9, 2015. The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months and 2 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon Friwon Friwon on December 9, 2015. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 17, 2015.

[2] The Defendant: (a) was a person who had been in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice as indicated in the above criminal records; (b) was not a driver’s license on August 24, 2016; and (c) was under the influence of 0.243% of alcohol during blood; and (d) was driving a JWz car at approximately one meter from the Do in front of the transfer of Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, 1041-1 and the same Do in front of the Southern-gu, Suwon-gu, 103% under the influence of alcohol during blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness K, L, M, and N;

1. Results of watching at the site ctv images;

1. The circumstantial report of the driver of the vehicle, the driver’s license ledger, on-site photographs;

1. Previous conviction: The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel, such as a written reply to inquiry about criminal history, etc., and the text of the judgment, is not clear as to whether the defendant's driving distance is short so as to be driving under the Road Traffic Act, and there is room to view that the police officer's duty to prevent the crime was not fulfilled since the defendant's drinking begins.

First of all, the above evidence can be found to have been driven as stated in the above facts constituting the crime, and there was any defect in the police officer's duty to regulate the driving of drinking.

Unless there are circumstances to see, the defendant's above assertion is rejected as it is without merit.