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

On March 10, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch, which became final and conclusive on the 18th of the same month. On April 11, 2013, the Daegu District Court sentenced ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Emergency Medical Service Act, etc. on the 19th of the same month, which became final and conclusive on May 14, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 9, 2014.

The defendant is a person who drives a BNF car.

On September 4, 2009, at around 02:14, the Defendant driven the said car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.063% on the road in front of the Seoul Tolle-gu Solar, Sungnam-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the detection of TS;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of three copies of the results of case search bound in the records of public trial and five copies of the judgment;

1. Article 150 Subparag. 1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 9580, Apr. 1, 2009); the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that, after the detection of drunk driving, the Defendant prepared a suspect interrogation protocol to the police station and returned to the police station at the request of the police officer, and did not receive notification of the principle at the time of leaving the police station, and that he was not at the time of the alcohol alcohol measurement.

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion that it is difficult to regard it as a compulsory investigation that must notify the principle of non-satisfy, and the fact that it is not attributable to the party concerned at the time of the measurement of alcohol alone cannot be viewed as illegal. Thus, the above argument is rejected.