A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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.

Criminal facts

The Defendant driven D Karen car as a driver on October 15, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.074% in blood. On October 15, 2015, around 02:02:10, the Defendant proceeded two lanes among the five-lane roads located at 383km Seoul Fence Line Seoul at the 383km of Fence Line on the D Gyeong Highway, Busan, with the speed of about 100 km in the city of Seoul.

At the time, the Defendant followed the FM car of the victim E driving, and in such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to maintain safety distance, keep the front door well, accurately manipulate the steering and brakes, thereby preventing accidents from occurring.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform so under the influence of alcohol and caused the damage to the extent that it is impossible for the Defendant to repair the said marina car due to the occupational negligence, which led to the injury of the back part of the said marina car to the front part of the said car, and the said marina car was turned to the right-hand, and as the said marina car was turned to the right-hand right-hand, the Defendant caused the victim to suffer light dysiums in need of treatment for about two weeks.

However, the defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking relief measures against the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each traffic accident report;

1. A photograph of an accident vehicle;

1. 112 Book of receipt of the report;

1. A report on the detection of the driver at home and a written statement of the situation of the driver at home;

1. Videos, such as operation of teas;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant has no intention to commit a crime of escape, as long as the defendant did not recognize that the loss of human life occurred due to a traffic accident in the judgment of the defendant.

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not take measures as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the damaged person.