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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a rocketing car.

On October 21, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol 0.077% on blood alcohol level around 21:50, 50 to 7m on the street in front of the Ewing Office located in Busan Nam-gu, Busan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

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

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

1. The defendant's assertion argues that his vehicle was exposed to the crackdown on illegal stopping, and that the defendant's act constitutes the crime of this case in the course of moving the vehicle out of the vehicle dog's business place after being demanded by the staff of the vehicle dog's business place to find the vehicle within business hours in drinking condition, and therefore, it constitutes an act that does not violate social rules and thus constitutes an act that prevents illegality.

2. The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1764, Oct. 28, 1986; 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). In light of the evidence duly adopted by this court and completed the investigation.