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

Defendant 106, on October 25, 2016, Defendant 2017, at the 53-lane, 34-lane, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, an ambassador of Yongsan-gu, Seoul on October 25, 2016, Defendant 106 temporarily held the vehicle key until it reaches the following, at the 54-lane, by a police officer at the 53-lane, who has driven a motor vehicle by drinking, or by a third party:

In addition, even though the defendant had the defendant returned home, "The next kira, the guym, the guym, the guye gue gu, the guym, and the dye, the dye., the dye.

“Dricking and slicking the entrance, and forced or slicked by very rough horses and actions for about 45 minutes, such as carrying the entrance by hand and drinking.

Defendant 107, on October 25, 2016, Defendant 2017, driving DMW motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.173% in the 1km section from the Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul to about 70-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

[2017 High Court Decision 106]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of control and investigation report (on-site CCTV and examination of evidential images);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the detection of drivers engaged in driving and the statement of the circumstances of drivers engaged in driving;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of disturbing the revocation of the official approval), Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking), and the selection of fines for each crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, and according to the “on-site CCTV CD” submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant sent a substitute engineer to the South Korean police box, and even though the Defendant knew of such fact and requested the police officer to send the key to the vehicle, the stamp police officer did not have the key to the vehicle for any reason.