Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 11, 2013, at around 21:15, the Defendant driven a DNA taxi under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.132% from approximately 2.5 km to the roads near the 3rd of the Matan-si in Pakistan, the same day from around 21:19 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Second protocol of interrogation of the accused in the police preparation;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. The circumstantial report on the primary driver and the report on detection of the primary driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report, an investigation report (Attachment to the closure of Internet NAV images), an investigation report (information on the analysis of the details of currencies of suspects and reference persons);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant's assertion;

A. After driving a vehicle, the Defendant 15 to 20 minutes passed since he left the vehicle, and the police officer taken a drinking test in a state of arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender even though it is not clear whether the Defendant was a drunk driver because the police officer did not directly witness the Defendant’s drunk driving. The result of the drinking test in such illegal arrest is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence.

B. The Defendant drank 2 residues from the head of the village to the head of the Defendant’s residence, driving a breath from the head of the house to the head of the Defendant’s residence, and breath by mixing the breath and beer at the I convenience store of the head of the house. As such, the result of the breath measurement cannot be viewed as the drinking water at the

2. Determination

A. The Defendant mentioned in the investigation of the instant case, after completing the operation from the early stage of the investigation, mentioned CCTV in convenience stores while drinking alcohol more. Furthermore, if the driving of drinking alcohol is recognized, a situation in which the Defendant, who was a private taxi driver, could have a considerable disadvantage, is predicted.