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

A. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, who is a person engaged in driving of a Bhool-do passenger vehicle owned by the bank in charge of the settlement of a traffic accident. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant operated the said car in the direction of the Lho-do Office in the direction of the Lho-si bus terminal in the direction of the new Daol-gu Office in the new Daol-gu Office in the

The place is on the intersection of a private distance where the direction sign is installed to turn to the right, while the person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to prevent accidents that safely proceed along the moving direction indicated on the traffic sign, but the part of the driver in front of the vehicle is due to negligence committed in breach of the above duty of care, and the part of the driver in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the driver in front of the vehicle in front of the driver in front of the driver in front of the victim's D personal taxi, which is proceeding in the direction of the driver in the direction of the driver's license in front of the driver's license in the direction of the driver's license in front of the driver's license in front of the driver's license in front of the driver's license, and continuously conflicts with the

The Defendant suffered injury to the victim C by occupational negligence, which requires a stable price for about three weeks.

B. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the measurement) (fluence) at around 19:00, the Defendant: (a) caused an accident as described in the foregoing paragraph; (b) was at the influence of alcohol; and (c) was at the speed of about 80 meters from the 80-meter radius in front of the glusium, in front of the glusium, to the front of the glusium; and (b) there was considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant driven the Brlus vehicle volume owned by the glusium in the section of approximately 80 meters from the glusium to the glusium in front of the glusium, and (c) did not comply with a police officer’s request for the measurement of alcohol by inserting the drinking measuring machine for three times from 19:5 to 20:15 on the same day without justifiable grounds.