Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 26, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Incheon District Court to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on November 30, 2007, a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine was issued from the Suwon District Court to the same crime.

Nevertheless, at around 23:44 on August 11, 2016, the Defendant driven a BM3 car while under the influence of alcohol of 0.151%, and proceeded with a section of about 50 meters for the same cause from the BM3 car in the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon to the front road of the BM3 apartment commercial building.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the circumstances of the driver, report on the detection of the driver, and report on the driver;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports, reports on the previous dispositions, results of confirmation, and copies of each summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the order of provisional payment is that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, even though he had a number of criminal records that violated the Road Traffic Act, including those of the same kind of crime caused by drunk driving, and even though he was driven under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant did not repeat the crime, such as the fact that the Defendant, even though he was a proxy driver, did not have a proxy driver but did not have a way to look back because he did not know about his geographical sense, he did not directly drive a proxy driver in order to take advantage of other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the driving distance was short, the driving distance was divided, his mistake was late, and the vehicle possessed is sold.