The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 12, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000,000 by the Daegu District Court on the charges of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving). On May 2, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 by the same court for the same offense, etc.

On May 21, 2018, the Defendant driven a Epoter II cargo vehicle from “B” located in the Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu to “D” located in the same Gu C from “B” to “D” located in the same Gu C, with approximately KRW 1k alcohol concentration of approximately 0.135% during blood.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, who violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice.

2. Determination

A. According to the inquiry about the result of the drinking control that this court duly adopted and investigated and the notification of the result of the drinking driving control (printed output) by this court, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.135% alcohol concentration in blood at the time stated in the facts charged.

B. However, the defendant asserts that the person driving as stated in the facts charged is not himself but a person with no name.

There are the F’s statement and black image CDs as evidence showing that the Defendant operated a cargo vehicle, as shown in the facts charged, as well as the F’s statement.

In doing so, F is difficult to believe the above statement, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) in this law, F made it clear that there is no indication that the Defendant and his name in the name of the person with whom the Defendant would be making a release from the cargo vehicle; (b) in order to demand the Defendant to take a deduction of F’s parked vehicle; and (c) in F’s legal statement, there is no circumstance that F’s false intervention in the statement.

In the case of the black image, only the defendant who has already been released from the car and his name dissatis are moving to the front or rear of the cargo vehicle, and such image alone was operated by the defendant as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to recognize it, and otherwise, to recognize it.