If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On September 2, 2017, the Defendant driven a car with approximately 1 km from “D cafeteria” located in Daegu Northern-gu C to the front of the same Gu E while under the influence of alcohol more than 0.1% of alcohol during blood transfusion around 01:00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a report on the situation of a driver driving, an inquiry into the results of regulating drinking driving, etc., and a report on actual condition [the defendant and his defense counsel] [the defendant and his defense counsel have taken 2 eggs of water exemption and exemption 2 at home after the defendant caused a traffic accident, and thereafter have complied with a measurement of drinking after drinking after drinking at around 01:00, because the defendant continued to sleep and again responded to a measurement after drinking after drinking at around 01:44, the amount of alcohol content is 0.187% from the blood measured at around 01:4;

Although it is alleged that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Defendant driven the above vehicle while under influence of not less than 0.1% of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant stated to the effect that there is no evidence to prove the following facts: (a) the Defendant did not speak the above circumstances to police officials F who called to the scene upon receiving a report and measured the drinking volume; (b) rather, the Defendant stated that the aforementioned police officials’ final drinking time confirmation was “not more than September 1, 2017”, and (c) if the foregoing additional drinking is true, the alcohol concentration higher than the blood alcohol concentration and is considerably unfavorable to the Defendant; (b) if such additional drinking is true, the Defendant appears to have complied with the alcohol measurement after the blood alcohol level until the 2nd World Cup was in place; (c) the possibility that the Defendant did not speak the above circumstances favorable to himself at the time of drinking; and (d) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant submitted the investigation record without examining the result of measuring the drinking volume of 17% of the above police officials’s drinking volume.