Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who drives a three-dimensional car.

On December 30, 2015, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.097% among the blood transfusion around 23:04 on December 30, 2015, driven a vehicle above approximately one meter distance on the front of the E cafeteria located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu D.

Summary of Evidence

1. A traffic accident occurrence report;

1. Each traffic accident report;

1. A written statement on the occurrence of each traffic accident (F, G);

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. Making teas;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Investigation report (related to black boxes and video images);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to vehicle booms and video booms;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (2) and (3), and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion does not constitute driving under drinking, on the ground that he did not intend to drive a vehicle in the future, on the ground that he did not drive a vehicle of 50 centimeters or above (the franchise and the food in 2014) since he did not intend to drive since he did not drive the vehicle in order to avoid drilling and waited for a proxy engineer in a car with a view to avoiding drilling.

The argument is asserted.

According to the vehicle black image, the vehicle starts at the same time with the stop of over-the-spath and the operation of over-the-spath after 3 seconds, the road involved in the accident of this case is flat, there is no data for the Defendant to issue an agent before the accident of this case, and the vehicle is moving to a D where the change is moving from the P location to the change speed while the vehicle is going to move to the D location through R and N location. In light of the fact that the Defendant failed to provide reasonable explanation on the reason that the vehicle is driving.