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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On August 2, 2012, at around 00:0, the Defendant driven C Lasta car at approximately 1m section under the influence of alcohol content of 0.189% from the 349 Hacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu to the front road of the East Sea at 349 Haak-dong 349.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D and E each testimony;

1. The first police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. A copy of the protocol of examination of prosecution concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report, a report on the situation of the driving of a motor vehicle into the motor vehicle into the motor vehicle, a report on the detection of the motor vehicle into the motor vehicle, a field photograph, a report on the request for appraisal, and

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the defendant, although he was drinking at the time, he only driven a substitute driver on the vehicle and did not drive the vehicle as stated in its reasoning.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, namely, the Defendant was seated in the driver’s seat, and the front section of the Defendant was protruding along the road, and the police officers who investigated the Defendant stated in this court that the Defendant was at the time of drinking driving at the investigative agency. However, the Defendant’s statement to the investigative agency is deemed to have been made in a particularly reliable state. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s testimony was conducted in an investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant was aware of the fact of drinking on the spot, and the F was made to the effect that the Defendant was aware of the fact of drinking on the spot, due to the testimony made in this court.