Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On December 3, 1996, the defendant issued a summary order of one million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court's House on December 3, 1996, the summary order of one million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court's Branch on June 26, 2002, the summary order of one million won or more as a fine for the same crime from the Pyeongtaek District Court's House on August 30, 2006 to the same crime, the summary order of two million won or more as a fine for the same crime in the same court on December 19, 208, and the summary order of seven million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court on February 18, 2009.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 25, 2014, at around 05:15, the Defendant driven a DNA car while under the influence of alcohol with approximately KRW 1 km from the front day of the Handong-dong Handong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si to the next day of the same city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the state of driving under the influence of alcohol, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing summary orders;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

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 of the provisional payment order is that even though the defendant had been punished several times as the same crime as the criminal records in the judgment, he/she again committed the crime of drinking driving, and therefore there is a need for the corresponding punishment.

On the other hand, in determining the punishment, the defendant recognized the crime and divided it, three times, but the last punishment has been imposed for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, for more than five years, and the amount of drinking alcohol in this case has not been relatively high than 0.070%, there is no criminal record of the defendant sentenced to a suspended sentence, and the defendant includes a suspended sentence.