If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

around 22:15 on December 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) operated a motor vehicle in front of the mouth D while drinking alcohol, and was subject to drinking control from one-time G, etc. belonging to the police station F in the safe-sea during the safe-time period; (b) when the control was lowered from the damaged vehicle to the wall; and (c) during the escape, the Defendant was at one time at the right direction of G in order to ppuri the said G that was stiking the Defendant while flying.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning drinking control, criminal investigation, arrest of flagrant offenders, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness G’s legal statement (a witness G’s statement is credibility in light of the following: (a) the defendant denies the fact that he/she was a food price; (b) the witness’s statement is consistent, (c) he/she was found to have been 1 second degree of thought due to his/her shock, and (d) he/she was set up at the bar, and (e) he/she was set at his/her seat, and his/her attitude to make statements;

1. Application of written opinions, photographs and statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Determination as to the defense counsel's assertion that the provisional payment order was not a legitimate execution of official duties under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is 0.0482% of the blood alcohol concentration presumed by applying the Madmark formula to the defendant, which falls short of the punishment value for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). The defendant cannot be deemed to have been found to have driven under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the requirements for arrest of the flagrant offender (the apparentness of the crime, the necessity of the arrest, and the proportionality) are not satisfied.

In addition, in the process of the arrest of the defendant, the police officer should give the defendant an opportunity to defend himself/herself by informing him/her of the summary of the offense, the reason for the arrest, and the defense counsel.