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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On December 22, 2015, the Defendant driven approximately 10 meters of the B rocketing car on the front of the new apartment distribution unit in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, under the influence of alcohol content 0.117% during blood transfusion around 23:31, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and statement in the circumstances of the driver of drinking alcohol;

1. 112 Application of the 112 Reporting List, each investigation reporting statute;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) (excluding punishment) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim for emergency evacuation against the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is an emergency evacuation since the passenger who had driven an automobile at the time refused the operation after getting on the road while waiting for the above signal, and the defendant was driving an automobile at the time in order to avoid traffic accidents and traffic congestion.

However, Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid the present danger to his or other person’s legal interests. Here, “an act of considerable reason” in order to constitute “an act of necessity,” the act of necessity should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of necessity should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second way to inflict the most minor damage on the victim. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of necessity should be more superior to the profit that is infringed. Fourth, the act of necessity must be appropriate in light of social ethics and legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 206, etc.). Considering the situation recognized by the evidence, the situation at the time of the occurrence of the act of necessity, the situation of the Defendant’s drinking alcohol, and the degree of driving, etc., the Defendant under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case must drive a motor vehicle.