도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On January 20, 2017, the Defendant driven a D's low-pollution car owned by D's engineering Co., Ltd. in a section of about 2 km from the other square in the return city to the same unit in the case of harmony (O.S. 710-1) from the other square in the return city of 0.083% alcohol concentration among blood transfusions on January 20, 2017.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. The report on the circumstantial statement of driving at driving at driving and the notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the above evidence is inadmissible as it constitutes illegally collected evidence, but the following argument is without merit as seen in the column of "the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion"
1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
1. The Defendant, at the time of the instant measurement of alcohol alcohol, demanded the police officer to conduct a measurement of alcohol by means of blood gathering by the enforcement officer at the time of the instant measurement of alcohol alcohol, but the blood alcohol concentration from the enforcement officer’s pulmonary survey corresponds to the disposition of driver’s license suspension and the blood collection method shows that blood alcohol concentration is higher in the case of the measurement of alcohol consumption by means of blood gathering, and renounced the measurement of alcohol by means of blood gathering.
Ultimately, since the Defendant was unfairly deprived of the opportunity to measure drinking by means of blood collection, the Defendant’s report on the state of driving and notification on the result of the control of drinking driving (hereinafter “each evidence of this case”) against the Defendant is inadmissible as evidence of unlawful collection.
Even if each of the evidence of this case is admissible;
Even if considering the defendant's drinking time, drinking measuring time, etc., it can be readily concluded that the alcohol concentration in blood is 0.083%.