Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 10, 2017, at around 16:15, the Defendant driven three cargo vehicles with approximately KRW 7 km from the day before the 'large house' on the 2-lane of the dialogue market in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do, the D class and 161% alcohol content during blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. An explanatory note;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant asserted that G and B, after driving the vehicle after drinking about the degree of 3 residues of W and W, the Defendant got at his house, and again was able to drink one mixed-child and locked. However, police officers found it and conducted a drinking test. The Defendant’s 0.161% of the alcohol measurement depositee of the instant case did not take into account the drinking alcohol at his house after driving the vehicle. Thus, it cannot be recognized since the Defendant did not take into account the drinking alcohol at his house.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant was driving alcohol as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

It is reasonable to view it.

① The police, E, and F, who were under the control of traffic signal violations, called “breathing a vehicle suspected of driving alcohol because of the fact that a vehicle suspected of driving alcohol,” led to a vehicle driven by the Defendant suspected of driving alcohol, and subsequently discovered the Defendant who reported a change from the vehicle to the end, and measured drinking on the spot.

(2) At the time of the measurement of drinking, the Defendant was unable to properly hold his body while driving a heavy snow.