If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On November 13, 2013, at around 01:10, the Defendant driven a cchip car at a 1m section in front of the Daegu Suwon-gu Police Complex, where the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by 0.149% of alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the circumstantial reports on drinking drivers, notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving, inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving, written expert records, and written reports on drinking drivers;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s vehicle is driving a vehicle with the intention of driving only when a vehicle with a speed 1 meter changed in the process of getting off on a vehicle, while having a motor vehicle with a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle with a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle on the vehicle.

B. The result of blood collection appraisal against the Defendant is that the blood gathered after 90 minutes since the blood alcohol concentration was risen in the blood alcohol concentration, and it cannot be deemed as evidence for the Defendant’s drinking driving.

2. Determination:

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case as to whether the Defendant was a drunk driver, i.e., the Defendant’s driving of the Defendant’s car and blocking the Defendant’s driving of the car, ii) there was a dispute between the Defendant and D, and E, who was a driver, and the Defendant was under no circumstances of drinking, and iii) the Defendant was placed on behalf of the driver at the time of the preparation of the circumstantial report.