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. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a motor vehicle B with the highest investment vehicle in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) and the Road Traffic Act (Egress after accidents).

On February 16, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:34, and led the front of the macro-ray viewing road at the ancient city at the same time, to the front of the macro-ray viewing road at the new village.

In such a case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by complying with the train line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and negligently led to the Defendant’s negligence, which led to the Defendant’s failure to drive the back part of the back part of the passenger car set up in the front section of the Defendant, which was driven by the Defendant at the Defendant’s front section of the driver’s seat of the Defendant, and led the Defendant to conflict with the back part of the passenger car set up in the Defendant’s front section of the passenger car set up in the front section of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the injury of light salt units requiring medical treatment for about two weeks from each of the above occupational negligence, and at the same time, went away without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the MF3 car to the extent of 560,207 won, even if the MF3 car was damaged to the extent of 1,913,624 won for repairing it, the Defendant did not immediately stop the MF3 car to the extent of 560,207 won.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) driving a vehicle B with alcohol level of about 8.4 km from the front side of the ancient city in the ancient city, which is located in the ancient city, at the time of the day as set forth in paragraph (1) to the front side of the apartment apartment in the Asia-si, regardless of the beneficiary height, the Defendant driven a vehicle B, while under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.133%, with alcohol level of about 8.4 km.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or C;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A survey report on actual condition and a report on the detection of a driver engaged in driving;

1. Photographss, caps of accident images, each diagnostic letter, each.