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 history] On January 8, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeju District Court. On August 10, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million with the same crime in the same court.

[Criminal facts]

1. On November 27, 2017, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (drinking) driving a C body-man car under the influence of alcohol of approximately 0.065% of alcohol concentration at approximately 0.065% at the road at the entrance of the teice parking lot located at approximately 24, 99, Seopopo-ro, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, 19:40.

2. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) is a person who is engaged in driving service of the first passenger car in C body.

On November 27, 2017, at around 19:40, the Defendant driven the above vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and started from the entrance of the teice parking lot located at No. 99-gil, Seopopopo-ro, 99 (Dong Hong-dong) at Seopo-si, Seopo-si, and came directly into the intersection at the entrance of the teice parking lot, leading directly to a three-distance crossing at the entrance of the said parking lot.

At that time, at night and at that time, traffic control by signal apparatus was not supported. In such a case, when a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle is well aware of the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle, and when the width of the road crossings is wider than that of the road where the motor vehicle is traveling, there was a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle to prevent accidents in advance by driving the motor vehicle, such as driving the motor vehicle on the road where the width is wider than that of the road where the motor vehicle is traveling.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence that the Defendant neglected this, while drunkly proceeding under the influence of alcohol as set forth in Paragraph 1, the Defendant was found to have been in front of the instant body part of the Defendant’s driver’s first right-hand side of the Victim D (SS 350), which was proceeding directly from the right-hand side of the Seopo High School, in the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding, regardless of the small-scale, the left-hand side of the Defendant’s proceeding.

The defendant is the victim due to the above occupational negligence.