A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 20, 2015, the Defendant driven approximately 10m-free cars while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.115% in the parking lot located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, and at around 19:05.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of witness F and G;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Report on the traffic control of the drinking driver;

1. A report on the main driving;

1. The ledger using sobling measuring instruments;

1. On-site photographs of control vehicles;

1. On-site map and photograph;

1. Sulphical field photographs;

1. Submitting photographs of the suspect;

1. Each investigation report (applicable to the details of detection and the relative on-site investigation of witnesses);

1. The punishment provided for in Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Notwithstanding the record of the same kind of crime committed several times of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined by taking into account the following two factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive leading to the crime, etc.; (b) the Defendant, as at the time of the instant case, was placed at the time of the instant case, was placed in a car seeking to leave the scene as soon as possible due to his or her H and F fighting; (c) however, the Defendant did not drive a vehicle because of the fact that he or she had driven the vehicle, and thus, did not drive the vehicle.

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, the criminal facts in the judgment are sufficiently recognized, so the defendant's above defense cannot be accepted.

In particular, the Defendant did not drive the vehicle at the start of the vehicle in order to avoid the time cost of the vehicle, such as F, but did not move the vehicle at the wind to view the coming from the police vehicle at approximately 150 meters prior to the start of the vehicle. The Defendant alleged to the effect that it is false to confirm the Defendant’s vehicle at a distance of at least 10 meters away from the police vehicle.

Witness

H’s testimony is the same purpose.

The present site of this case, among the evidence mentioned above.