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

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

Criminal facts

On October 19, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch.

around 21:40 on February 12, 2020, the Defendant driven a Da QM6 vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.091% in approximately 1.2km from the entrance of the front underground parking lot of the B apartment in the Macheon-si to the front front apartment C-dong parking lot of the same apartment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Report on the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. 112 Report 112 Report List, investigation report (the statement made before the measurement of a suspect's alcohol level), investigation report (the statement made before the measurement of the suspect's alcohol level), photograph of the bbbbbbbox image-cap photograph, elevator CCTV-cap photograph, investigation report (the F telephone conversations of a witness), investigation report (the video conversation of a witness G telephone), investigation report (the video conversation of a suspect at home), investigation report (the body of a suspect), investigation report (the body of a suspect), investigation report (the re-determination of blood alcohol level of a suspect according to the dmark formula), investigation report (the re-determination of blood alcohol concentration according to the dmark formula); and

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (report attached to the same type of power), application of summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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 is that the defendant is under the influence of alcohol again even though he/she had a record of criminal punishment due to a drunk driving, and the risk of such act is very high.

However, the defendant seems to have an attitude that the defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again while reflecting his fault in depth, and the apartment parking lot which is located as an agent at the time of this case has been located in the apartment parking lot, but to park the vehicle after returning the substitute driver.