Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Criminal facts

Some of the facts charged were corrected.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle C 125cc c in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

On August 11, 2016, the Defendant driven the above Oral Ba while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.066% from the blood transfusion around 17:50 on August 11, 2016, and continued to drive the front road of the E cafeteria located in the Busan Jin-gu, Busan, at a speed of about 10 km from the spathro to the spathro.

In such cases, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle to prevent accidents by safely driving the motor vehicle, such as reporting the traffic situation well and accurately manipulating the steering gear, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, neglected to do so and found the Victim F (63 years) who was walking in the same direction before being in front of the same direction due to negligence that led to the failure of the Defendant to neglect it, and delayed detection. However, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was unable to avoid it, and the Defendant was able to go beyond the road floor by receiving the front part of the Defendant’s soil from the front part of the road.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim on the right side of the conical fluorum base, the lower court’s fluorial fluoral fluoral fluor, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

2. A violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) was driven by the Defendant at a level of about 500 meters from the front of a restaurant located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, in the form of alcohol level of 0.066% during the day-to-day alcohol level as stated in paragraph (1).

3. The Defendant is a holder of an objection to C125cc.

No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, the defendant operated the above Oral Ba which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. CCTVs 1.