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.

1. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Southern District Court on the same day. On June 2, 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court was sentenced to a fine of two million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and on December 2, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won or more due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the support for the development of the Suwon Gigwon Gigwon Gigwon Gigwon Gigsan, and was punished two or more times for drinking.

Nevertheless, at around 07:05 on November 1, 2017, the Defendant driven the Cirsom car at approximately 1.2 kilometers in a state of alcohol concentration of about 0.161% in blood while under the influence of alcohol level from 37:0 to 37:0 in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seocho-gu Seocho-gu Seocho-gu, Seoul.

2. Around November 1, 2017, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury caused before the risk) was driving the said car on the front side of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, leading to the turn to the left at an insular speed with the front side of the Seoul Gangseo-gu church.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive a road without distinction between India and a roadway, and a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to ensure safe driving of pedestrians by accurately operating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while driving the said vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.161% in a state where normal operation is difficult due to the influence of alcohol while driving the vehicle, caused injury, such as a duplicating a dup of a dup of the victim DNA (e.g., age 71) that was running on the right side from the left side of the course due to the negligence that caused the left-hand turn without properly examining the dup and the left-hand side of the vehicle, and caused injury to the victim, such as a duplicating the dup of a duplic of approximately four weeks to the front part of the said vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report, a report on the detection of a driver at the main place, a report on the circumstances of the driver at the main place, a medical certificate, and an investigation report (victim’s statement); and