However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a vehicle B low-priced vehicle in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

On February 18, 2018, the Defendant driven a high-speed vehicle at around 22:45, and continued two lanes in front of the Songcheon Village in Ulsan-ro 58, Namcheon-gu, Ulsan-do, at the speed of about 60 kilometers per hour from the direction of the upper mix to the upper mar elementary school.

At the time, there was an intersection where signal lights are installed at night and at the front door, so there was a duty of care to safely drive the driver on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle while accurately manipulating the front door and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the steering system of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and proceeded at the front of the above-mentioned vehicle, and received the rear part of the victim C(29 Doh-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri vehicle in front of the above-mentioned vehicle in front of the above-mentioned vehicle in accordance with the signal, etc. suspension signals installed at the above intersection at the front of the above-mentioned vehicle.

Defendant 2 suffered injury to the victim, such as cerebral sye, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence.

2. On February 18, 2018, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol by E hospital located in Ulsan-gu on the same traffic accident as that of the preceding paragraph at the E hospital located in Ulsan-gu on February 23:27, 2018, and then sent back to the same location, and thereafter, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol to the Defendant from G with the light view to the seat of the F District of the Ulsan-do Police Station.

There was a reasonable reason to determine a person, and it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting the breath in four times between about 20 minutes.

However, the Defendant, in a manner that does not put the part of a drinking measuring instrument into a drinking measuring instrument, failed to comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement 1.