Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 04:40 on November 1, 2014, the Defendant driven the volume of B rocketing car at the section of approximately 5m (5m) in front of the road at the Ganwon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Daegu-gun, Gyeongwon-ro 425, under the influence of alcohol by 0.129%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing field photographs for drinking driving;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., taking into account that the distance of driving is shorter and part of the vehicle has been moved while a substitute engineer has left the place);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As the defendant asserts that the place where he drives a vehicle does not fall under the road under the Road Traffic Act as a restaurant parking lot under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant asserts that the place where he drives the vehicle does not fall under the road under the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act is punished. Meanwhile, Article 2 subparagraph 26 of the Road Traffic Act defines the "driving" as using the vehicle from the "road in accordance with its original method of use," while Articles 44 and 148-2 of the same Act include the "place other than the road" in the case of Article 44 and 148-2 of the same Act, regardless of whether the parking lot which the defendant drives while under the influence of alcohol corresponds to the "road" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, it is evident that it is subject to the punishment as provided in

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.