Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On October 19, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3,000,000 by the Seoul Eastern District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 1, 2019, at around 04:37, the Defendant driven Cone Star Sheet while under the influence of 0.09% of blood alcohol concentration at approximately 15 meters in order to park in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking driving, and report on the state of drinking drivers;

1. Photographs;

1. Each investigation report (the details of the direction of the prosecutor);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: The application of criminal records and investigation reports (traffic-related criminal records)-related statutes;

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. In order to determine whether an act constitutes an emergency evacuation under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the act of necessity under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interests. Here, “an act of considerable reason”, the act of necessity should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the latter must be the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit preserved by the act of necessity should be more superior to the profit that is infringed upon. Fourth, the act of escape must meet such requirements as the act of necessity for appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case was examined and adopted by this court.