Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On March 9, 2012, the Defendant received a fine of one million won as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on March 9, 2012, and a fine of two million won as a crime at the Incheon District Court on July 31, 2013.

On December 27, 2016, the Defendant driven a Drata car owned by the Defendant from around 4 km to the front of the Incheon-gun B Market to around 0.132% alcohol concentration among blood transfusion around 21:00.1)

The blood alcohol concentration of 0.156% as stated in the written indictment is calculated by applying the above dmark formula to 0.132% of blood appraisal value. However, even according to the evidence of this case, it is difficult to recognize the accuracy of the result, and it is difficult to recognize the blood appraisal value as criminal facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. On-site photographs, a survey report on actual conditions, a field map, a statement of consent to blood collection (including related data of post-use search and seizure warrants attached thereto), a request for appraisal, or a statement of alcohol alcohol during blood;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply letter to inquiry, such as criminal history;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. At the time of assertion, the defendant's driving under the influence of alcohol is inconsistent with the defendant's blood collection, but the list of seizure or seizure protocol was not prepared, and the blood seized was also discarded without permission is also in violation of due process of law.

Therefore, the drinking volume of this case cannot be recognized.

2. (1) First of all, the record reveals that there is a circumstance in which an investigative agency, upon issuance of a ex post facto search and seizure warrant regarding the blood of a defendant pursuant to Article 216(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, did not prepare a list of seizure under Articles 219 and 129 of the same Act while having received a warrant of search and seizure.

(2) However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the following circumstances are as follows.