A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 3, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the Violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the Violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving) at the Daegu District Court of Daegu on July 3, 2007. On July 23, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a math car.

On June 13, 2015, at around 06:15, the Defendant driven the said car with a alcohol concentration of 0.122% while under the influence of alcohol at around 06:15, the Defendant driven the said car and driven the three-lane road in front of the two-lanes from the right side to the right side of the west-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Seogsan-do along a private-distance intersection.

Since there is a large distance crossing with the signal apparatus, there was a duty to safely drive the vehicle to prevent the accident in advance by driving the vehicle in accordance with the signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and received the part of the victim C(58) driving at the right side of the running direction of the Defendant, who was left to the left in accordance with the new subparagraph, due to the negligence of the Defendant’s left heading, as part of the front part of the car left ahead of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as a downshore, salt, etc., which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence.

2. Although the Defendant was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation for Loss, the Defendant operated the Category B Ma motor vehicle owned by the Defendant, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, as described in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Inquiry into the mandatory insurance;