A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 the vehicle BM520 No. 520.

On May 30, 2013, the Defendant driven the above car on May 30, 2015, and brought the front road of 25, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-ro, 69, to the agricultural air defense from Samsung Fire Prevention surface.

At the time, there are two vehicles parked on both side roads at night, so in this case, there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle so that the person engaged in driving service can well see the front left and the vehicle is not faced with the parked vehicle.

Nevertheless, as a result of the Defendant’s negligence of driving a vehicle with such duty of care as above, the Defendant did not immediately stop and dispose of scatterings, even though he did not take necessary measures, such as making it possible for the Defendant to take a DNA lurged vehicle, which was parked on the right-hand side of the Defendant’s running vehicle owned by the victim C (IS 40 years of age), to use it as the front-hand part of the Defendant’s driving vehicle’s driving vehicle’s driving vehicle, to damage the said hurged vehicle in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,68,146, and to damage the said hurged vehicle’s repair cost.

2. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement of drinking level) at the traffic survey office of the Ulsan-dong Police Station in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-dong from around 06:38 to around 07:17, the Defendant was required to comply with the measurement of drinking level by inserting a drinking measuring instrument four times from E of the police station belonging to the above police station, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the police officer dispatched upon receipt of the report on the accidents described in the above paragraph (1) has smelled in the Defendant’s entrance and smelting, and that the police officer was under the influence of drinking, such as walking, etc. while walking, etc., he was under the influence of drinking. However, the Defendant did not comply with the measurement of drinking level by keeping the drinking measuring instrument in his hand and did not comply therewith without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;