If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won per day.

On August 10, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.19% from around 02:10 on alcohol level, the Defendant stated in the written indictment of about 70 meters “a 70-meter section” in the daily indictment for about 150 meters from the front corner of the forest 14-3-17 Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-do, to the desire of the same Eup, even though they are in 91 at the same Eup/Myeon wishing to do so. However, according to evidence, it is recognized that “a 70-meter distance” is recognized as “a 70-meter distance,” and that there is no impediment to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, thereby correcting it as above

In the section, the C-learning Motor Vehicle was operated.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Arrest report of the occurrence of the case, two copies of the 112 report processing case, notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving, statement report of the situation of the driver under the influence of alcohol, investigation report (report on the situation of the driver under the influence of liquor), application of the Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [the defendant and his defense counsel] argues that since the defendant's defendant and his defense counsel have driven inevitably in order to see the damages caused by his or her male, because he or she was frightened by his or her around when he or she was born a threat, he or she was forced to drive drinking or drive it inevitably in order to see the damages caused by his or her storm. Thus, the defendant's defense counsel did not intend to drive drinking, or

However, in full view of the background of the report admitted as evidence, the situation at the time of the dispatch of the police officer to the scene after the initial report, the situation at the time when the police officer confirmed the replacement site, the situation at the time of the defendant's person, the response to the police officer and the statement about the defendant's vehicle, etc., it is difficult to deem that there is an string male who threatens the defendant in the vicinity of the defendant'

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected on a different premise.