A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On November 6, 2008, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Sungnam support center of Suwon Friwon on November 6, 2008. On May 22, 2017, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 5,000,000 due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving) at the Sungnam support center of Suwon Friwon, and there was a total of two times of violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving).

[Criminal facts] The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of CAW-E-car.

1. On October 22, 2017, the Defendant driven the said vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of at least 0.244% while under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license from the front of the “Annch,” which is located on the water surface of the Chungcheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, in around 16:10 on October 22, 2017.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of this prohibition.

2. The Defendant is a person who violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from dangerous driving) and is engaged in driving of X-D motor vehicles.

At the date specified in paragraph 1, the Defendant driven the said car as described in paragraph 1, and proceeded with the 8-luminous distance from the surface of the water to the lives of the water surface with the lives of the water surface.

Since there is an intersection where a signal is installed, there was a duty of care to accurately operate and proceed with the steering and brake system according to the signals.

Nevertheless, as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.24% in blood, was able to breadly drive normally with a large range of red and without fulfilling his/her duty of care, and proceeded to cross-sections when the vehicle signal, etc. is red.