Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B-Wood vehicle.

On April 30, 2019, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed that cannot be seen from the view of the steering gate to the normal gate of the road located at the 2642 at the eth of the ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic.

Since there are two places, there was a duty of care to pass along the right side of the central separation zone, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the victim C (hereinafter referred to as 43 years of age) who was driving along the lane in the front direction of the Defendant’s proceeding due to the negligence of the Defendant’s neglecting it, and caused the victim to suffer bodily injury, such as the mouth of the left-hand sloping, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of statutes to the written diagnosis of victims;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Special Cases concerning the Selection of Punishment for Criminal Facts, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act with regard to the order to provide community service and attend lectures is that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was driven towards the opposite direction without entering the right side of the road in which the central separation cost is located.

(However, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident in relation to the driving of alcohol by the defendant was not prosecuted for 0.043%). Also, the accident caused by the driving of alcohol naturally can anticipate the risk of the accident at the time of the operation, so it cannot be evaluated as a result of simple negligence, and in this case, the risk of the driving of alcohol was realized.