Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 12, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court, and ten months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan High Court on July 25, 2013.

On May 30, 2017, the Defendant driven D Poter Cargo in the section of approximately three meters near the 4-dong area of the C Apartment in Busan, under the influence of alcohol content of 0.113% during blood transfusion on May 30, 2017.

Therefore, even though the Defendant violated two times or more due to drinking, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant was sentenced to three times a fine due to drinking alcohol driving, one time a suspended sentence, and one time a sentence, and again went to the instant crime during the period of repeated offense due to driving without a license, and the Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, there are some points to take into account the circumstances of the driving of the drinking of this case (the fact that the defendant was a substitute driver after drinking, and the defendant was an apartment parking lot that the defendant was living together, the above apartment house was found to have a parking space narrow, the defendant's replacement of other vehicles parked after moving the vehicle in the parking lot, and the defendant's sentence is too harsh to sentence the defendant, who is the person holding the suspended sentence, to whom the defendant was sentenced to a fine only once, in the course of discussing the compensation problem by contact the borrower and discussing the compensation problem). Thus, it is deemed that the sentence of the defendant, who is the person holding the suspended sentence, is too harsh. Thus, the defendant is sentenced to a fine only once