1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

On January 7, 2016, the Defendant driven a CM7 car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.204% during blood on the road from around 00:27 of the East Sea to around 00:0 to around 0.204.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. A report on the detection of the driver at each primary driving and a statement on the circumstances of the driver at each primary driving;

1. Written reply to a request for appraisal;

1. Fact-finding survey report and report on the occurrence of any traffic accident;

1. On-site photographs of a traffic accident;

1. Each video accused and his/her defense counsel shall have no driving at the time and place set by the accused;

However, in full view of the above evidence, it is clearly recognized that the defendant was driving as stated in the judgment.

Defendant

In addition, although the defendant consented to the collection of blood after an accident, the defendant's consent was not true due to mental and physical weakness at the time, and it was unlawful as a forced blood collection made after the defendant has lost his mind. Thus, the defendant asserts that the reply to the above request for appraisal is inadmissible.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, at the time, the defendant measured the alcohol level of 0.112% in response to the breath measurement, and notified the police officer D to the effect that the defendant can take blood again, and the defendant agreed to take blood again in response thereto, and the defendant's defense counsel made this consent without the defendant's effective consent, so it is illegal collection evidence. However, this evidence is acknowledged as evidence as to whether the defendant consented to the above document, separate from whether the defendant's consent was due to a breath, and it is true that the defendant signed the above document itself.