On June 4, 2008, the Defendant received a fine of one million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on November 24, 2009, a fine of two million won as a crime from the Incheon District Court on November 24, 2009, and a fine of five million won as a crime at the Seoul East East District Court on May 24, 2013, respectively.

around 02:05 on April 1, 2018, the Defendant driven a e-sports car with approximately 15m alcohol content of about 0.103% in blood while under the influence of alcohol from the Do in front of C industrial company in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to D front roads.

The defendant has been driving a drinking alcohol twice or more but has also been driving a drinking alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notice of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and a record of measuring drinking alcohol;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel in the inquiry about criminal history, the third part of the judgment, etc.

1. In order for the defendant's substitute engineer to avoid traffic accidents, etc. that have been driven by a vehicle while on the road, the defendant's vehicle is operated at a 15-meter level at the edge of the road, so it constitutes an emergency escape.

2. Determination

A. Emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Code refers to an act with considerable reason to avoid the present danger to his or other person's legal interests. Here, "act with considerable reason" is to constitute "act with considerable reason", the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second victim must be the most minor damage. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape should be superior to the profit that is infringed by it. Fourth, the act of escape must be appropriate in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006).