If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On November 17, 2012, at around 02:15, the Defendant driven a 20-meter D vehicle from the next road of the Seo-gu Daejeon Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council 338-6 Seo-gu, to the front road of the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan Council, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.09%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness EF;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the photograph, 112 reported statement;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fine) concerning the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's operation of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is only parked in the location of the vehicle at the time of the dispatch of the police from 18:00 to 18:00 prior to the crime day, and

The direct evidence that corresponds to the facts of the crime is E's investigative agency and court statement, and credibility exists in light of the following circumstances according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, so the facts of the defendant's driving can be fully recognized.

① There are some unclear parts such as E’s occupation, and there is consistent statements to the effect that, in relation to the core parts related to criminal facts, “the vehicle landed from the alley side of the Western intersection does not turn off again after stopping at the end of the crosswalk, and thus, the Defendant was divingd as the driver who returned to the opposite part.”

E, while making a statement as above at the time of the police investigation conducted on November 17, 2012, E used the expression “Sagles on the right side of the Western Council.” However, at the time of the police investigation conducted on March 7, 2013, E immediately made a statement that “E was erroneous,” and the telephone report made on February 23, 2013, stating that “E was coming from the Madra’s room to the Madrop bank.” However, at the time of the police investigation conducted on March 7, 2013, E corrected that the said statement was opposed.