Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a spectrum vehicle in the amount of automobiles.

On October 29, 2014, around 20:35, the Defendant driven the said vehicle under the influence of alcohol content 0.174% at a distance of about 2 meters, while driving the said vehicle at the front parking lot of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, 2013 at approximately 29, Hyundai apartment 103.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The application of each Act and subordinate statute to each written report on driving of a drinking driver, the ledger on the use of a drinking measuring instrument, and the written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 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. The defendant's ground of conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the place where the defendant driven is located in an apartment parking lot, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is not established since it does not fall under the road under the Road Act.

Article 2 subparag. 24 of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010) provides that "driving" means using a motor vehicle or horse on a road according to its original purpose and use. However, Article 2 subparag. 24 of the amended Road Traffic Act, which enters into force on January 1, 201, provides that "driving" means using a motor vehicle or horse on a road (including places other than a road only under Articles 44, 45, 54 (1), 148, and 148-2) in accordance with its original and original use."

Therefore, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act prohibiting drinking driving and Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the same Act, which is a penal provision for the same provision, can be applied regardless of whether it falls under a road under the Road Act.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument cannot be accepted, and it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged by each evidence in the judgment.