The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who has been punished twice due to drunk driving, and the Defendant driven a ENAS car from January 10, 2019 to 00:10,000 to 10:0,000, while under the influence of alcohol 0.072% of blood alcohol concentration at approximately 10 meters from the window Bel of Changwon-si at the window Bel of Changwon-si to the same Gu.

As a result, the defendant violated the prohibition of drunk driving at least twice, and once again drives a car while under influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

2. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the present danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second method to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit to be infringed upon, and fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396 Decided April 13, 2006, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in the instant case, the Defendant appears to have only moved the vehicle to a parking lot located on the right side of 5 meters prior to the road to reduce traffic obstruction and accident risk, and there was no intention to drive the vehicle. In light of the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time and the distance from which the Defendant moved the vehicle, etc., the risk that may occur to the life and safety of another person due to the Defendant’s act was deemed to have not been much significant. On the other hand, the legal interest secured by the Defendant’s act is more likely than the above infringement interest.

As stated in the facts charged of this case.