Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 21, 2015, the Defendant driven a DM5 car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.064% from a section of approximately 300 meters of alcohol content to the front road from Samsung Home plus, which is located in the Dong Ordinance of the relevant Sincheon-si around Samsung Home plus, to the same city’s net light, and from a section of about 300 meters to the front road.

Summary of Evidence

Defendant’s partial statement E of the witness E of the witness E of the Defendant, a report on the state of driving in each legal statement of F, and the inquiry about the result of crackdown on driving alcohol [the Defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the above drinking value cannot be recognized because the alcohol concentration in blood of 0.064% was measured at the time when 20 minutes have not elapsed from the time of the final drinking control.

However, according to the above evidence (e.g., F in the process of regulating the Defendant's direct drinking at the time of this case, he stated the Defendant's vehicle after driving the Defendant's driver's driver's driver's and the driver's vehicle after drinking control at the time of this court), it can be recognized that the Defendant measured the blood alcohol level of the Defendant after the lapse of 20 minutes from the Defendant's final drinking drinking time. Since the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant's vehicle before the measurement, it can be recognized the blood alcohol concentration in the criminal facts, and the witness G's testimony alone is not enough to reverse it), the pertinent law as to the criminal facts covered by the law, and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Act on the Private Road Traffic, Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Litigation Order at the time of fine selection, and Article 334 (1) of the Act on Criminal Procedure at the time of the Defendant's final drinking.

The Defendant did not raise an objection to the alcohol concentration at the time of the investigation by an investigative agency on a formal trial, and denied the facts charged. As a result of the examination, there is reasonable ground for the Defendant to raise an objection at the stage of the public trial.

Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Act Article 186, Paragraph 1 is applicable.