A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year 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-S car.

On December 17, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.128% during blood transfusions on December 22:10, 2016, and transferred 1:07 to the right side of the Maritime Port Authority from the south apartment site to the right side of the Maritime Port Authority.

At the time, there is a night and a place where the center line of the yellow-line is installed, so there was a duty of care to ensure thorough operation of the driver in the front line and safe operation of the car line.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant neglected to do so, and thereby, got the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the victim C was able to move in the opposite direction due to the negligence of frighting the center line.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc., in need of approximately two weeks of treatment due to occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Each E statement;

1. Evidence and photographs of the traffic accident scene;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) 2 and 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 38 (2), and 50 of the said Act for the increase of concurrent crimes;

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence does not have the same criminal history as the defendant, and that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the fault of the defendant is serious is disadvantageous.

In addition, considering that the amount of fine may be harsh in light of the defendant's economic situation, it is also considered that the amount of fine may be more severe.