특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On January 28, 201, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on January 28, 201 and KRW 4 million for the same crime at the same court on May 17, 2015, respectively.
【Criminal Facts】
1. A person who drives B K5 cars in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury) and the Road Traffic Act (Non-accident after Accidents).
On May 3, 2020, around 19:45, the Defendant proceeded along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the Eastcheon 2-do, the two-lanes of the Eastcheon 438-24, the transmission of which is in the cheon-do, Mancheon-do, 038-24.
In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving the motor vehicle with the safety distance with the driver of the motor vehicle while accurately operating the steering gear and the steering gear while maintaining the safety distance with the driver of the motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, due to influence of drinking, was negligent in performing the above duty of care, and the Defendant followed the victim C (Nam, 45 years old) driving with D low-speed car, which was driven by the victim C (Seoul, and 45 years old). The Defendant got a driver to the front-class spread of the said K5 car.
Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, caused the victim to suffer injury to salt, tension, etc. in light of the trend requiring medical treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time, did not immediately stop the said low-speed car with the repair cost of KRW 3,352,568, and failed to take necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.
2. The Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) driving a H K5 vehicle in the state of alcohol with approximately 0.094 percent alcohol concentration in the section of about 8 km from the street in front of the “F” in the case of temporary border such as the preceding paragraph to the front of G in the same city.
Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. The actual condition survey report;