A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,500,000, and by a fine of KRW 400,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Defendant B, on September 4, 2013, at around 20:20 on September 4, 2013, the Defendant came to be a vision with the vehicle driven by Defendant A while driving the vehicle from the front distance of the Mademing hospital in Pyeongtaek-si.

For this reason, the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on A, such as catum fat, chatum fat, chatum fat, chatum fatum, and satum fatum, etc., which require A’s treatment for about 14 days by cutting down a battop.

2. On September 4, 2013, at least 20:20, the Defendant driven a vehicle 5 kilometered on the “C”-learning line, one of which he is in possession of the company, in the state of the main development of the 0.082% blood alcohol concentration (HEM) at a restaurant where it is difficult to identify the trade name located in the Gongdo-Eup at Ansan-si. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23518, Sep. 4, 2013>

Summary of Evidence

O Defendant A

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle under consideration, and the statement on the state of standing of the motor vehicle under consideration;

1. O defendant B of the blood alcohol appraisal statement;

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of a police officer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 148-2 (2) 3 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act; Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257 (1) of the Road Traffic Act; and Article 44 (1) of the same Act;

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

1. The sentence of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that Defendant A recognized a crime and repented, the criminal records of drunk driving are two times, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case. Defendant B recognized a crime and divided it with A; Defendant B agreed with A; Defendant B did not have the previous department; Defendant A’s driving under the influence of alcohol without the previous department; Defendant A’s driving under the influence of alcohol was the cause of trial expenses; and the degree of damage to A, etc.

Public prosecution dismissed part (Assault against Defendant A)

1. The Defendant’s summary of the facts charged is from the front distance of the hospital, which had the right to receive a deposit in Pyeongtaek-si on September 4, 2013, at around 20:20.