Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 28, 2014, around 06:47, the Defendant driven three meters of road in front of the two fixed libraries located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.134% while under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of the actual survey report and the traffic accident report;

1. Application of the provisions of 1 to entries in the main driver report (excluding the part concerning the defendant's statement), photographs at the scene of accident, and CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the two libraries;

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. Mitigation of discretionary work and taking into account Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (the distance driven by the accused is shorter and only the penalty power has been imposed before 2004, etc.);

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant's act of driving a motor vehicle with the intention to drive the motor vehicle without intention while under the influence of alcohol and driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

The term “driving” under Article 2 subparag. 19 of the Road Traffic Act means the use of a vehicle on the road in accordance with its original use. Since the concept of driving as referred to in this context includes a subjective element in light of the content of the provision, it is not the driving in a case where a vehicle is driven without a person’s will or involvement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004). In this case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant intentionally driven a motor vehicle, taking into account the following circumstances known from the evidence mentioned above, so the above argument is not acceptable.

(1) The purpose of the defendant is to operate a drilling after entering a motor vehicle.