Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person driving a vehicle B for passenger (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”).

On October 4, 2020, the Defendant driven the instant vehicle at around 60 meters from the front side of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front side of Dong-dong apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) under the influence of alcohol content of 0.114% among the blood transfusion around 04:00.

Summary of Evidence

1. A written statement prepared by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as an explanatory note, notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving, a statement of the situation of the driver of the vehicle driving, and a tea inquiry;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (3) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is that “The Defendant, at that time, driven the instant vehicle on the road immediately before entering the entrance of the instant apartment, by allowing a substitute driver to park it on the road immediately before the entrance of the instant apartment, this constitutes an emergency escape and thus, the illegality of the instant crime is dismissed.

The grounds for appeal are as follows.

Article 22 (1) of the Criminal Code refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid the present danger to his or another person's legal interests. Here, "an act of considerable reason" should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape should 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 preserved by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit that is infringed by it. Fourth, the act of escape must be appropriate in light of social ethics and the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006, etc.).