Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 1, 2015, at around 01:05, the Defendant driven an E Cost Corpex under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.178% while under the influence of alcohol in front of “rain-ging” road located in the Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the drinking-driving regulations;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The act of the defendant is an emergency evacuation because the alleged driver has set up a vehicle on the side of the road and has driven it inevitable to prevent the traffic by leaving the vehicle on the side of the road at the cost of the agency fee.

2. Therefore, according to the defendant's protocol of interrogation of the police suspect against the defendant, the defendant is driving at a place specified in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the defendant.

On the other hand, it is recognized that the Defendant stated that the driver was driving the instant vehicle which the substitute driver stopped on the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the road, and that the Defendant stated that the traffic of the vehicles emitted from the alleys of the runways is not much inconvenienceed at the time of the police investigation, but the traffic of the vehicles was inconvenienceed.

However, in light of the following: (a) the time when a person was driving the instant vehicle, which was parked in the two-lanes, there is no circumstance to deem that there was a traffic obstruction by the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the two-lanes; and (b) there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant was driving the instant vehicle in an imminent situation to the extent that there is no time to deem that the Defendant was driving the instant vehicle due to an imminent situation.