However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle B.

At around 13:10 on May 10, 2019, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.219% in the village park located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and led the Defendant to drive the said car on the side of the Heungung-gu, which was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.219%.

At all times, since the car in the D Spart area driven by the victim C(S, 42) stops temporarily for the signal atmosphere, in such a case, there was a duty of care to accurately manipulate the brake system and prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the brake system to prevent the accident.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of the Defendant’s negligence while neglecting this, the Defendant got the victim’s motor vehicle back to the left-hand side of the driver’s car and received the part on the right-hand side of the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s car in a situation where normal driving is difficult due to the influence of drinking, and suffered injury, such as salt ties and tensions, which require approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim C and the victim E (the 10-year old age), respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police statements prepared C;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16307, Dec. 24, 2018; Act No. 16307, Jun. 25, 2019);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation does not have a same criminal record, and the defendant has a depth of his mistake, and the result of the damage caused by the accident in this case.