A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 engaging in driving a vehicle in CM520.

1. “E” written in the facts charged in victim D appears to be a simple clerical error.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

On November 2, 2014, at around 15:33, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol of 0.059% of alcohol concentration, and proceeds in front of the said building in front of the Goyang-gu, Goyangyang-gu, Seoul as a result of the unification of Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu.

In other words, it was turned out to the face of the strike.

Since there is a center line, signal, etc. of yellow solid lines, in such cases, a person engaged in driving motor vehicles has a duty of care to make a internship in the U.S. permitted section according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and went to the left side of the FNAS car driven by the victim D, which was driven by the negligence that was driven by the victim D, as it was a green signal, and received the remainder side of the car above the above SM520.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by the above occupational negligence, destroyed the repair cost of KRW 2,448,290, such as the removal of the Nos. 448,290, and escaped without taking necessary measures according to the accident.

2. At around 15:54 on the same day as the preceding paragraph, the Defendant driven the said SM520 car under the influence of alcohol, and led the Defendant to drive the said SM520 car in the same way as above, depending on the two-lanes of the wall No. 775, the two-lanes of the wall No. 775, the Seoul Coast Guard.

At the time, other automobiles are running on the front side, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the front side and the left side, and to accurately operate the steering and the steering system.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and did not properly live in the front bank, thereby leading the victim G who was working in the front bank.