A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (CPoter II) The Defendant is a person driving CPoter II active transport vehicles.

On October 23, 2013, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at a speed of about 40km per hour from the west Road to the Western City of Do, the Do Agricultural Cooperative in the Docheon-dong, Docheon-do. The Defendant driven the road at a speed of about 40km per hour from the west Road to the west Road of the Sincheon-do.

At the time of night and at the center of the road, there are installed a central separation cost of iron systems, so the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle safely by accurately manipulating the brakes, steering gear, etc., while living well on the right and the right and the right and the right.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded with the above central separation zone as part of the above cargo vehicle in front of the above cargo vehicle by negligence.

The Defendant, by occupational negligence, immediately stopped the central separation zone, which is owned by the victim through the management of the victim, so that approximately KRW 700,000 of the repair cost, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as checking the degree of damage and arranging scatterings.

2. On October 23, 2013, from around 01:10 to 01:30 on the same day, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal to take a drinking level) and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was making a drinking, such as making a fluorous speech on the inside and outside of the police station E district office of the Tong-gu Police Station located in Tong-si, and speaking on the breath of the accident as referred to in paragraph (1), while investigating the accident as referred to in paragraph (1), the Defendant was required to take a drinking test on a total of three occasions from the police officer of the above police box to the police officer assigned to the above police box, but refused

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each testimony of witness F and G;

1. A report on detection of a motor vehicle driver and a survey report on the actual condition of traffic accidents;

1. Accident site and photographs of a site where drinking is refused to be measured;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. After accidents provided for in Article 148 and Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which relate to the relevant criminal facts and which select punishment;