Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.072% on blood alcohol level at around 23:04, driven a 3 string 50m from the road front of 227-6, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the front bus stops in front of the LG Research Institute No. 221, the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control (A);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation report (suspect A's blood alcohol concentration trend);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the provisional payment order against the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are asserted to the effect that the act of the defendant constitutes an emergency evacuation, excessive escape, or erroneous escape, since a substitute driver drives a vehicle to prevent an accident by refusing to drive the vehicle and leaving the vehicle away.

However, in order to constitute "an act with considerable reason" under Article 22 (1) of the Criminal Code, it refers to an act that has considerable reason to avoid the present danger to one's own or another's legal interest, and in this context, the act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape should be the sole means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second method to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the profit that is infringed by it, and fourth, the act of escape must meet the requirements such as necessity to be suitable means in light

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, i.e., the Defendant, a substitute driver, are as follows.