Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Since a person who made a misunderstanding of the legal principles drives a vehicle inevitably by demanding the deduction of a number of persons parked vehicle, this does not constitute a crime of coercion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “voluntary act” as referred to in Article 12 of the Criminal Act refers to an act committed by force of another person, such as impergible violence or intimidation to injure the life, body, etc. In this context, intimidation means a intimidation by which one or a relative does not have any way to prevent harm to the life, body, or life, body, and coercion means a specific act by preventing the forced person from making a free decision-making.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and recognized the Defendant’s violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) on the ground that, in light of the above legal principles, the Defendant reported that the Defendant did not cut off the vehicle after having arrived at the underground parking lot of the apartment in which he resides, and that the other party did not cut off the vehicle. The other party reported that the Defendant did not cut off the vehicle, and that the police arrived at the scene immediately after the driving of the instant case. Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the police did not assault the Defendant, or threaten the Defendant’s life or body, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of drinking driving of the instant case was forced. Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the court below.

B. According to the record on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant's drinking acceptance is considerably high as 0.104%.