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

The defendant is a person who drives a three-dimensional car.

On March 2, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.110% among blood transfusion around 02:53, the Defendant driven the said vehicle from the roads near the Gungdong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to the roads near the Gungdong-dong, Seoul at approximately 1 km in front of the exit 7 in the same field.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as at the fourth public trial date);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Voluntary accompanying reports, etc.;

1. Notification, etc. of the results of regulating drinking;

1. Application of enforcement manual, vehicle photographing statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) (excluding punishment) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

3. Determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the grounds for conviction) and the Defendant’s defense counsel expressed 0.10% higher than the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration on the date and time set in the judgment

It argues that it cannot be readily concluded.

Where the distance between the time of drinking driving and the time of measuring the alcohol concentration in the blood is at intervals, and the time seems to increase the alcohol concentration in the blood;

Even if such circumstance alone makes it impossible to prove that the alcohol concentration at the time of actual operation exceeds the standard value of punishment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In such a case, the punishment level was higher than the standard level at the time of driving.

Whether it can be seen or not shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the distance between driving and measurement, the difference between the value of alcohol concentration and the standard value of punishment, the hours during which drinking continues, the amount of drinking, the driver’s behavior level at the time of crackdown and measurement, and the situation of the accident if there is a traffic accident, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6285, Oct. 24, 2013).