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

[criminal history] On December 28, 2006, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Seoul Western District Court on December 28, 2006, and on June 25, 2013, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violating road traffic laws.

[Criminal facts]

1. On June 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven a car on the horse side of the horse at C while under the influence of alcohol leveling about about 25 km from the nearby road to the front road of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, at around 00:05, the Defendant driven a car on the horse side of C, while under the influence of alcohol leveling about 0.160% during blood.

As a result, the defendant has violated the Road Traffic Act that he shall not drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, and has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

2. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car at the end of C in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

On June 14, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 00:05, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.160% in blood, the Defendant proceeded one-lane between the four-lanes in front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, at the direction of the Chamb, into the French stadium direction in the direction of the Chambol.

At the same time, there was a signal device installed at the right line to the left, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to take a person engaged in driving service into account the right line and the left, and to accurately manipulate the steering gear and the brake system to prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting his/her duty and did not discover the E-5 taxi operated by the victim D (38 Does) who was parked in the front bank in accordance with the new subparagraph, and did not discover the E-5 si in the front bank, and the part of the 5 si back of the K5 si was shocked with the front part of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in the front side of the Defendant Malaysia, and the victim F(51) who was parked in the front bank due to the shock of the 5 si.