Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives Oralba C.

On December 12, 2012, at around 10:40, the blood alcohol concentration of 0.117% was drunk, and approximately 30 meters was driven in front of the king sugar in the Dolle of Pyeongtaek-si in Pyeongtaek-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the actual status of a drinking driver, reports on the employment of a drinking driver, and reports on the actual status of a drinking driver;

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) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

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

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not drive Oral brea while under the influence of alcohol but rather led.

2. The testimony of the witness E, who corresponds to the defendant's defense at the time of the judgment, is an answer that does not fit for the season, etc. at that time, and it is difficult to believe it as is in light of the relation with the defendant, and the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, i.e., the witness D, the police officer, received a report that "the person engaged in the operation of the vehicle while driving the vehicle," was called to the scene and sent the report to the scene, and the police station was smoothly agreed upon, and then found and controlled the defendant who is driving the vehicle, who returned to the police station, while moving back to the police station. In addition, the above D, who had resolved the reported case smoothly and returned to the police station, did not control the defendant without any justifiable reason, and it appears that there is no reason to make a statement against the defendant in this court while accepting perjury even though the defendant did not have any interest.