Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] On December 29, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Ulsan District Court on December 29, 2008.

[2] On July 21, 2020, the Defendant driven a Dom-W 640d car on the front of the cafeteria located in Busan Shipping Daegu at approximately five meters away from around 5 meters to the cafeteria while under the influence of alcohol content of around 00:04, the Defendant driven a Dom-W 640d car at around 0.129%.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The application of the provisions of Part I of the Act and subordinate statutes to inquire about the results of crackdown on driving under drinking, the statement about the circumstances of the driver under driving under drinking [the previous conviction] criminal history, and a written inquiry and summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order constitute an emergency escape.

In order to constitute “emergency escape” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act that has considerable reason to avoid the present danger to his or another’s legal interests. Here, “act with considerable reason”, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the second one must be the method to inflict the largest damage on the victim. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit that is infringed upon, and fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics and the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006, etc.). According to the above evidence, the following facts are revealed.