도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On November 27, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on November 27, 2007.
Criminal facts
On December 31, 2019, the Defendant had been punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vehicle”), but around 22:45 on December 31, 2019, the Defendant driven a C-learning car (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vehicle”) under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.138% in a section of approximately 3 meters in order to park a vehicle at the parking lot within the Busan B-gu apartment site.
Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Report on the results of crackdown on drinking driving, the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and the report on the circumstances of driving under drinking;
1. Previous records of judgment: A judgment on the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of criminal history records, investigation records, and investigation status records;
1. The summary of the argument is that D's driving of the instant vehicle under the influence of alcohol and driving the access road to the apartment parking lot in the reverse direction, and inevitably parked the instant vehicle in the original place in order to prevent accidents with other vehicles. Therefore, the Defendant's driving of the instant vehicle constitutes an act of emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act and thus, it is justified.
2. In light of the risk of drinking driving, social harm, etc., it should be recognized that there was an urgent and apparent emergency situation to the extent that there was no other alternative to justify it as an act of emergency evacuation.
In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s drunk driving was an act of emergency evacuation, taking full account of the following circumstances revealed through the records of this case, etc.
The apartment parking lot in which this case occurred is separated from the entrance and exit exit, but D is under drinking.