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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a DM5 car.

On December 28, 2013, under the influence of alcohol content 0.169% on blood alcohol level, the Defendant driven the car at approximately KRW 100 meters from the front Do of the Bosch Rexroth Building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front road of the building in front of the building in the Dong-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A E-document;

1. Notification of the results of the driving control of drinking cars, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking cars;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a recording file filed 112 reported;

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 and his defense counsel's judgment on the assertion of the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order and his defense counsel's arrest of a flagrant offender against the defendant of the police. As such, the result of a drinking test conducted in a state of illegal arrest is not admissible as evidence illegally collected, and the defendant's drinking driving of this case is aimed at avoiding traffic interference due to the malicious stopping of a proxy engineer's vehicle's vehicle traffic on the end of the year, and thus, it is not illegal because it constitutes a legitimate act that does not go against the social rules or an emergency evacuation.

Therefore, according to the above evidence, the body fighting between E and the defendant and the substitute engineer, becomes a vision for the issue of whether E was an acting engineer sent by the defendant, and the first is an assaulted by E, the second is reported to the purport that E was a person driving under influence of alcohol, the second is reported to the purport that E was a person driving under influence of alcohol, and the police officer F called upon upon receiving a report was divided from E into a person driving under influence of alcohol, and the defendant was required to accompany the defendant to the district, but the defendant was required to accompany him.