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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a two-wheeled vehicle in CN125.

On August 6, 2015, at around 00:05, the Defendant driven the said two-wheeled vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.087% at the crosswalk 227 boxes in front of the monthly direction of Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, while driving the said two-wheeled vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.087%. On the other hand, the Defendant driven the third-lane of the fourth line from the west of Seoul Special Forest to the west 2nd parallel.

Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, it was confirmed whether a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive according to the new subparagraph after checking whether he/she is a person to reduce the speed and to see well the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with a stop signal while driving the vehicle, and had the victim D (71 years of age) who was a pedestrian who was a pedestrian who dried the crosswalk under the new name from the right side of the above two-wheeled automobile driving by the Defendant due to the negligence of driving the vehicle even though it was a stop signal, go beyond the front side of the above two-wheeled automobile.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the victim’s occupational negligence in 12 weeks from the upper right pelpel-non-alley executives who need treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of E and D;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Records of the measurement of drinking alcohol, records of the driving of drinking drivers, reports on the results of their actions, and investigation reports (with respect to the Tramark formula);

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

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1, 6, and 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense (or, respectively, choice of imprisonment);

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

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines for traffic crimes with reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and the standards for suspension of execution, and the suspension of execution for the accused as the same crime;