Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 3, 2018, at around 22:22, the Defendant driven an E UA5 vehicle while drinking about 0.194% alcohol concentration at approximately 30 meters from the front road of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front road of the same Gu D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Crime preventionCCTV images and cellphone video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a report on the statement of the status of a drinking driver, and an inspector;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fine) concerning the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In determining the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, since the substitute driver at the time of the instant case was at the place where the Defendant stopped the vehicle frequently and the vehicle was late, it was necessary to facilitate the passage of the vehicle by making an urgent round.

The defendant has inevitably driven a vehicle to move the vehicle to a safe place, which constitutes an emergency evacuation.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that, at the time of the instant case, the substitute driver stopped the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant case, three lanes from among the three-lane roads, and immediately passed the crosswalk at the time of crossing, but it is difficult to view that there is a risk of confluence with other vehicles on the ground that the substitute driver installed the vehicle at the time, and that there was a high traffic volume at the time.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument that the defendant's drinking operation was the only inevitable means to do so, and therefore it constitutes an emergency evacuation.