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 who is engaged in driving a B B B B B B B BB car.

On September 3, 2019, at around 03:06, the Defendant driven the said car while under the influence of alcohol with 0.207% of the blood alcohol concentration, and continued the intersection of the said car to the C Hospital from the eurgical bank to the eurgical bank.

Since the location is an intersection where signal lights are installed, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive in accordance with signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went through the intersection while entering the intersection, and thereby, was driven by the victim D (Nam, 60 years old) who is under normal signal from the left-hand side of the Defendant’s proceeding direction to the right-hand side of the instant vehicle as an even number of the driver’s seat door of the said vehicle.

The Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc., in need of approximately two weeks of treatment due to occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. The actual survey report and on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (3) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 and 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act [each of Imprisonment with or without labor]

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and (2), Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 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. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is not good in light of the degree of drinking of this case and the content of negligence. However, there is no specific criminal record of the defendant, the depth of the crime is divided after the crime, the victim of traffic accident and the original agreement are reached, the bringing-up of two minor children is being neglected after divorce, and other circumstances leading to the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relation, living environment, and crime.