A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of C QM5 cars in violation of the Road Traffic Act (Non-accident) against the victim B.

On October 23, 2014, the Defendant driven the said car with the alcohol concentration of 0.147% 0.147% in the blood alcohol concentration around 22:08, and led to the two-lanes located in the Joyang-gu Annyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City along the two-lane roads adjacent to the lueIC in the direction of the Seoul.

In such cases, the driver has a duty of care to prevent traffic accidents by ascertaining whether there is no vehicle driving next to the driver in the event that the driver changes the vehicle or not.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was driven by the victim B (the age of 63) who was driving in two lanes due to the negligence of changing the vehicle line by neglecting it, and was driven by the victim B (the age of 63) with the left space of the DCoc-C car on the right side of the vehicle of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by the above occupational negligence, destroyed the car of the above Coinac to be equivalent to KRW 915,002, the repair cost, but failed to immediately stop and take necessary measures, and escaped.

2. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the Road Traffic Act (U.S.) with respect to the victims E, etc., driving a C QM5 car at the same time as paragraph (1) while under the influence of alcohol at 0.147% of alcohol concentration in blood on October 23, 2014, and driving the C QM5 car at the same time as that of paragraph (1), leading three-lane roads in front of the port intersection in the direction of Seoul from the direction of strike in the direction of Seoul.

In this case, there was a duty of care to drive a person engaged in driving service in a clear mind and secure a safety distance with the vehicle that is driven before and prevent traffic accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is drunk.