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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On December 8, 2012, at around 23:25, the Defendant driven a car with gallon in front of the Cheongju-dong Open Cont which is open in the Cheongju-dong, Hoju-dong, about 5 meters in the volume of Cgallon car in front of the Cheongju-gu, Hoju-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on proper initiative of, and reports on the statement of status of, a prime driver;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fine) concerning the Selection of Punishment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( considered circumstances, etc. of sound driving);

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

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant parked a vehicle through an acting driver, and the Defendant was driven under the direction of the police officer to move and park, so the Defendant is not responsible for the lawful act, as there is no possibility of expectation.

2. According to the evidence in the summary of the evidence before the judgment, according to the witness D’s testimony, the Defendant: (a) moved D, a proxy driver, to the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the “hedoz” in the Heungdong-gu, Young-gu; and (b) D, under the situation where D does not stop the vehicle’s operation, was driving the vehicle according to the police officer’s instruction.

In order to determine whether the defendant is likely to expect a lawful act, the possibility of expectation should be determined from the perspective of the average person instead of the actor under the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and the above circumstance alone does not make it impossible for the defendant to proceed to a lawful act.

Therefore, defense counsel's assertion is without merit.