도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a low-priced car.
On October 4, 2020, the Defendant driven the above vehicle while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.262% during blood transfusion around 20:45, and continued from the front parking lot of Daejeon Sung-gu Seoul apartment complex D to the E-dong path through X-ray.
In this case, the defendant engaged in driving service has a duty of care to properly see the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty of care to prevent accidents.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was negligent in driving the vehicle, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle owned by the Victim G G (70) who was parked in the front of the C Apartment F, and continuously parked in the front of the C Apartment I, and the front part of the C Apartment I’s vehicle owned by the Victim J (57) who was parked in the front of the C Apartment I, and the lower part of the gate portion is continuously shocked into the front right part of the Defendant’s vehicle owned by the Defendant, following the left part of the CMW vehicle owned by the Victim J(39 years old) and the upper part of the CGF car owned by the victim N3 (59 years old) and the lower part of the CGF car owned by the victim P (63 years old) to the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle.
Defendant Company’s negligence caused the above occupational negligence to damage H rocketing passenger cars of 300,009 won in repair cost, 700,008 won in repair cost, 1,556,784 won in repair cost, OK3 cars of 3,984,736 won in repair cost, Qolf passenger cars of 17,791,60 won in repair cost, and escaped without taking necessary measures to prevent traffic danger and interference.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant's legal statement and survey report, notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving, and the driver who takes the main place; and