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

On August 20, 2015, the Defendant driven a B rocketing vehicle with approximately 20 meters alcohol content of about 0.059% in blood while under the influence of alcohol, from around 20:15 to the 85-ro in front of the same Eup in red-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A statement of control, a report on detection of the driver involved in the driving, and a statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in the driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Article 148-2 of the former Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant’s main point of argument did not notify the police officer prior to the measurement of alcohol, and did not inform the Defendant of the fact that the police officer violated the traffic accident control guidelines, such as failing to put himself/herself at his/her place of suffering from water, and did not inform the Defendant that his/her license was revoked due to the so-called 3-called

The defendant was not required to take a drinking test, etc. by collecting blood at the end of the control police officer that he/she constitutes a suspension of license.

Ultimately, the facts charged of this case based on the measurement of drinking alcohol in violation of the procedure are not guilty.

2. Determination

A. The U.S. Principle is to ensure the defendant's right of defense on the premise that the defendant is arrested and detained, that "the summary of the offense, the reason for the arrest, and the opportunity to defend himself/herself shall be given by informing that he/she can appoint a defense counsel."

However, according to the evidence of the ruling, since the defendant voluntarily accompanied or arrested the police station, etc. after the control, it is difficult to view that it is a forced investigation to notify the principle solely on the grounds of the defendant's assertion.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that he was not at the time of the measurement of drinking, but at the time of the measurement

Even if the drinking alcohol measurement procedure is illegal, it cannot be said that it is illegal.

(c)

The State driver’s written statement.