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

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing vehicle B.

On April 5, 2015, at around 20:15, the Defendant driven the above vehicle in a state where it is difficult to drive normally due to the alcohol concentration of 0.210 percent, and led to the operation of the above vehicle in the direction of a summary in the direction of why he would like to use the road above the dyp in the dypical management of the dyp, Pacific-gun, Pacific-gun.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely operate the steering and steering system by accurately operating the steering and steering system.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of neglecting this, the Defendant was found to have been negligent in driving the victim C (the 58-year-old driver) driving in the front, and received the parts of the back-up driver of the said rocketing vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from occupational negligence the injury of the victim E (the victim E (the 59-year-old person) who is the passenger of the above low-speed vehicle, such as salt, tension, etc., which requires approximately one week medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the report on the occurrence of traffic accidents and the actual survey report;

1. Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, as to the crime committed under the corresponding Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing criteria for the application of the sentencing criteria do not present a separate processing method for the ordinary concurrent crimes.