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

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 4, 2012, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.057% of blood alcohol concentration on September 21, 2012, operated the above vehicle from around 1.5km to the front of the apartment road in Busan Jin-gu to the front of the Jeonpo-dong located in the same Gupo-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the statement made by witnesses D in the fourth trial record;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant was at the place immediately before the crackdown on drunk driving of the instant case (at the place 50 meters prior to the control point) and was at the place of the mouth, which made it possible to have the Defendant suffer from the mouth chilling agents by mixing the beginning with the fluences, which was conducted without drinking alcohol at the time of the control, even though it was the mouth chilling agents, including alcohol ingredients.

Therefore, the result of regulating the blood alcohol concentration by the Defendant’s respiratory measuring method cannot be a evidence of conviction, and the Defendant’s crime of drunk driving, such as the facts charged, is not recognized.

2. Determination is based on the Defendant’s assertion that the content of the Defendant’s assertion was put in the drafting of a beverage containing alcohol immediately before the drinking control. This is not only an act that is difficult for a person who has a normal interest at the time of drinking control by itself at the time of drinking control, but also an act that does not differ from an act that makes the immediately preceding drinking measurement in order to conceal a crime of drinking driving.

Therefore, the testimony of the defendant and the defense counsel as well as the testimony of E is consistent with this.