The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 03:00 on October 5, 201, the Defendant driven D Latson’s car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.122% on the front side of the Tweon-dong modification pharmacy in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, up to the access road to the 292 Gangseo-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Ch.A.) (A.) the Defendant driving a DRason car and driving the DRason on the side of the access road to the Gangseobuk-dong 292, Mapo-gu, Seoul, at the time and time around the preceding port to the T. B. The Defendant was driving on the DRason.

On the other hand, the F bus owned by the victim E was parked in front of the direction of the defendant's course, so the defendant has a duty of care to care well so that he does not conflict with the above bus and drive safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to discover the remainder of the bus driven under the influence of alcohol, such as the preceding paragraph, and caused a shock on the left-hand part of the bus, as the front part of the Lart car.

Although the Defendant was accompanied by a bus with an amount equivalent to KRW 2,746,700, such as repair cost, such as a subsequent offender due to such occupational negligence, the Defendant left without immediately stopping the bus and taking necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties.

3. On October 5, 201, at the time of October 5, 2011, at the time of Defendant’s house 365 / 205 / 205 / Dong Fire Insurance of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant called “the Defendant paid insurance money in accordance with the insurance contract because, on the new wall of this day, the Defendant was stolen a DNA car that had been insured under the name of I, her mother was stolen, and the car was completely damaged by the wind of the bus on the road.”

However, the fact was that the defendant's own breath of the bus while driving under the influence of alcohol, like the above paragraph 2.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the Victim H, who is an employee of the Victim, and deceivings it from the Victim on November 4, 2011.