Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 23, 2017, the Defendant was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by receiving a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Daegu District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Daegu District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million on October 16, 2012.

Although the Defendant had a record of violating the provision prohibiting drinking driving under the Road Traffic Act, at around 05:40 on July 17, 2019, the Defendant driven a Enicoo-min vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.111% of blood alcohol concentration at approximately 50 meters from the front of the entrance of a commercial building adjacent to Daegu Suwon-gu B to the front road located in Daegu Suwon-gu C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, replys to criminal records, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution investigation report (verification of the same criminal records as the suspect);

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. 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 of the Provisional Payment Order had two times the history of punishment for drunk driving under Article 334(1) of the same Act, in full view of the following: (a) the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment to eradicate harm caused by drinking driving, operating in a drinking state beyond the license revocation standards; and (b) the fact that the crackdown seems to have been too high time to prevent recidivism, and the risk of recidivism is likely to occur, it is necessary to seriously warn the offender to prevent recidivism. However, the Defendant is a local public official who has a child, and his family members are forced to retire after the suspension of sentence becomes final and conclusive.