Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On 00:00 on 22. 02. 22. 00, the Defendant driven CK5 vehicle volume in the state of alcohol by 0.092% of alcohol alcohol concentration from around approximately 250 meters to around 3rd of Seocho-dong 1306, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D's legal statement (in light of the position and the duties assigned to the witness, the detailed and rationality of the contents of the statement, the existence of objective evidence consistent with the statement, the attitude of the witness's statement, and the fact that the witness has no reasonable motive to dismiss the defendant, credibility is recognized);

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the details of crackdown, and the status of driving under drinking;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

1. Reasons for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant's vehicle driving to the place of drinking control in this case is a restaurant softing engineer, and the defendant is merely under the influence of alcohol while waiting in a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and there is no fact of driving.

2. In the instant case, there is no evidence directly supporting the fact that the Defendant directly driven a vehicle to the control place of drinking driving.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, the time and place of the crackdown on drinking alcohol driving in this case, the developments leading up to the crackdown, and the situation where the Defendant was found in the driver’s seat and the Defendant’s behavior immediately thereafter, the Defendant was from the front of the restaurant as stated in its reasoning.