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

On May 31, 2016, at around 08:45, the Defendant driven a Csch Rexroth under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.059% at the distance of about 4km from the vicinity of the “temporary public parking lot” located in the voice group of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do to the vicinity of the “Tsung Agricultural Co., Ltd. Oil station” located in the same voice group of Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, Samsung, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content of 0.059%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving, and a statement in the circumstances of drinking drivers (Nos. 3 and 4 in the evidence list);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (Evidence List No. 5);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is to recognize the fact that the defendant, at around 08:58 on May 31, 2016, 0.05% of the blood alcohol concentration measured by respiratory alcohol at the time of the drinking control.

However, after the above measurement, the defendant demanded the measurement of the blood alcohol level by blood collection, and as a result, the blood alcohol level came to 0.069%, but since the blood alcohol level was used by the species which are not the species without any alcohol at the time of the above collection, the blood alcohol level by the above blood collection cannot be trusted, and the blood alcohol concentration by the first respiratory measurement can no longer be used as evidence at the defendant's request for the collection of blood level.

In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant exceeds 0.05% on a single-time basis in light of the general error of the respiratory tester, even though the blood alcohol concentration by the respiratory measurement exceeds 0.05% as the blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% as determined by the Road Traffic Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant responded to the drinking control on the front road of the Dahbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, 2016, around 08:58 on May 31, 2016.