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

Where the above fine is not paid, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 22, 2019, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol level of 0.054% from blood alcohol level on September 22, 2019, and the Defendant was driving on the Emast-purd car from approximately 23 meters from the entrance of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building Parking Site to the front of the same building C (D) at the same building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Control note;

1. The provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting on drinking, driving control, inquiry into the results of drinking-free driving and investigation;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (3) 3 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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant's act of driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged is true, but the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate emergency evacuation or social rules.

2. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the present danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second method to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit to be infringed upon, and fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). In addition, whether a certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and the illegality is excluded, under specific circumstances, objective, reasonable, and under specific circumstances.