A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

[criminal power] On May 22, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on May 22, 2008, and on May 7, 2010, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

1. On September 3, 2014, at around 21:15, the Defendant driven an E 5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.073% at the section of about 8km-ro, 54-2, up to the arrival of the road in front of the Jin-si, Jin-si. D.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, even though he/she violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act

2. The Defendant in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is a person who is engaged in driving a KS5 vehicle.

On September 3, 2014, at around 21:15, the Defendant driven the said car while under the influence of alcohol as set forth in paragraph (1), and led 54-2, a 54-2-way from the sloping distance to the intersection.

At the time, night time, the front door of the road was coming, and there was a crosswalk where signal lights are installed at the front door, and thus, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to reduce the speed and to check the front door and left door well, and to check whether there is a person who drives the motor vehicle, and to safely drive the motor vehicle according to the traffic signal and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and found the victim F (the 64 years old) and the victim G (the 69 years old) who was crossing the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals due to the negligence that continued to proceed at the same speed even though the signal was changed to the stop signal, and was taking urgent action to avoid this. However, the Defendant did not avoid it, and did not go against the Defendant’s vehicle, and did so with the victim F with the front wheels of the vehicle.