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

On July 18, 2014, at around 02:00, the Defendant driven C Launa car under the influence of alcohol of about 0.166% of the blood alcohol concentration from the front of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium of the lusium to the road of approximately 100 meters prior to the new lusium of the lus

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes as stated in the control report on drinking drivers, internal investigation report, report on the situation of drinking drivers, copy of the register of breath measuring instruments for drinking, and written report on the entry of drinking drivers;

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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant guilty of the provisional payment order, while recognizing that he/she had drinking at the time, he/she denied the charges by asserting that G operating the Seobuk-gu Epppar house located in Seocho-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, where he/she had drinking at the time, drives a vehicle on behalf

However, considering the following circumstances admitted by evidence, the Defendant’s statement cannot be deemed to have credibility, while the witness D’s statement is deemed to have credibility. Therefore, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by each evidence of the judgment.

Witness

D has reported to the police immediately after the defendant became aware of drinking alcohol, and the defendant has consistently driven the vehicle to the extent that he left the vehicle, and left the vehicle next to the D, and the defendant considered the driver's seat.

B. The Defendant stated that he had recognized the part of drinking alcohol to a police officer dispatched at the time without recognizing the part of drinking alcohol and recognized the part of drinking alcohol (No. 2, face No. 18 of the Investigation Records), but this Court stated that “her had been driven and had been driven.”