Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 31, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of two million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on May 31, 201, and on June 2, 201, the same court has the record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year to imprisonment with labor for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc.

Nevertheless, at around 22:45 on November 19, 2017, the Defendant again driven an EMW car in the state of alcohol concentration of about 70 meters from the front of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B to the front of the D Bank located in the same Gu C, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.051%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement report on the circumstances of the driver who is placed in driving, report on the circumstances of the driver who is placed in driving, inquiry into the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking, and investigation report (report on the circumstances of the driver

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history, and reports on investigation (Attachment to a copy of the judgment, etc.);

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. An error exists in the measurement of alcohol by the respiratory measuring instrument of the assertion, and the Defendant measured the alcohol before the lapse of 30 minutes from the final drinking time. This is highly likely to increase the Defendant’s physical blood concentration. As such, the Defendant was proved to have driven under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.05% in excess of the standard value for regulating the driving of alcohol.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

(a) Where the distance between the driving point and the blood alcohol concentration is measured, and the time seems to rise the alcohol concentration during the blood;

Even if such circumstance alone, the alcohol concentration at the time of actual operation is punished.