Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding eight million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On October 16, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Jeju District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

[Criminal Facts] Around 04:00 on April 17, 2020, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.122% of alcohol level, was driven from the parking lot C located in Jeju-si to D in Jeju-si, thereby violating Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant in this court;

1. Statement of the suspect interrogation protocol on the accused prepared by the police;

1. Statement of the circumstantial statement of the driver of the police station, investigation report (report on the circumstances of the driver of the police station), and record the results of the crackdown on the driving under influence of alcohol; and

1. Previous conviction: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes that describe a statement of inquiry into police preparation;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (The following grounds for sentencing):

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

1. 【The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 【The scope of applicable sentences under the law】 A fine of 5 million won to 10 million won (in the case of discretionary mitigation) 【The sentence of a fine of 8 million won] The Defendant alleged that the amount of fine of 10 million won issued by the summary order is too excessive. Thus, even though the value of blood alcohol concentration measured by the Defendant at the time of the instant crime is relatively high to 0.122%, it appears that the Defendant recognized his mistake and divided. Meanwhile, considering the fact that the distance of the Defendant’s drinking driving at the time of the instant crime was relatively short, and that the Defendant did not have any other criminal record other than the first one in the head of the judgment, it appears that the amount of fine initially notified by the summary order to the Defendant is excessive.