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 March 13, 2007, the defendant was notified of a summary order of a fine of one million won in the Daegu District Court due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On June 5, 2020, at around 11:23, the Defendant driven a car with about 1mm with a DNA window, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.194% in front of the Daegu Suwon-gu B apartment C apartment cdong entrance.

Accordingly, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

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, etc. and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution investigation report (Attachment, etc. to summary orders for sound driving);

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 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (when suspension of execution of a sentence of imprisonment is invalidated or revoked);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Although there was a history of punishment for driving under the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the current Road Traffic Act, which greatly strengthened the control standards and statutory punishment, has been enforced after the enforcement of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, it is necessary to give a strict warning in order to prevent recidivism.

However, according to the evidence records and the result of sentencing examination, although the defendant was on duty in Crona 19 Krona, he did not know the situation and did not go to the am as if he worked in the am. Thus, the defendant's car purchased at the convenience store near the apartment house in the residential area and dice in the apartment parking lot located in the apartment house in the residential area, and it was clearly stated that the defendant's car was remarkably moved in in the future for the convenience of parking of other residents, so there is a lot of situation to view the drinking and driving circumstances after 207.