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

1. On August 4, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million with a fine of KRW 4 million at the Incheon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court, and on April 4, 2017, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million with a fine of KRW 4 million with the same crime as the same offense.

On May 5, 2020, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.075% of blood alcohol level around 20:15, the Defendant driven CM518 car from the front of a restaurant located in the mutual influence-dong to the intersection of the front of B apartment at the same time from around 1km to the intersection of the front of B apartment at the same time.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

2. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a passenger car in CM518, in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

On May 5, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.075% as indicated in the preceding paragraph at around 20:15, while driving the said car at the speed of 0.075%, and go straight lines in front of B apartment at the Naju City, from the gate of the light processing administration and welfare center to the gate of B apartment entrance from the gate of the light processing welfare center at the speed of about 60km.

At the time, it is night and its location is a private-distance intersection with signal apparatus, so there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of traffic accidents by seeing the front side and maintaining the safety distance to those engaged in driving of motor vehicles.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so under the influence of alcohol and neglected to do so, due to occupational negligence, and caused the victim D (Influence, 41 years old) who was in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle to be in the traffic signal atmosphere, and led the victim to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to sugar, etc., which did not have two or more wifes open for two weeks of medical treatment, due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A traffic accident;