Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of Crain cars.

1. Around 00:30 on June 9, 2018, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) driving the said car and driving it on the three-lane road in front of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu along the three-lane road along the industrial tower.

At the time, there are nights and vehicles going along the same lane in front of the front, so in such a case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to look at the front and left right and right right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty of care to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to drive the vehicle at the front direction of the Defendant’s driving by negligence, and received the victim E (31) from the left-hand of the Fcoof driver’s vehicle driven by the Fcoof which was driven by the Defendant, to the front right-hand of the vehicle of the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury of the victim E and the victim G (the age of 30) who was on board the victim due to the above occupational negligence, each of the two weeks of the injuries, such as salt, tension, etc. in the trend requiring a stable medical treatment.

2. On June 9, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven on the road in front of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S.A.D., where the Defendant caused an accident, such as the preceding paragraph, and the Defendant took a walk from the I slope of the police officer of the Ulsan-gu Police Station H District of the Ulsan-gu, U.S. Police Station, where he was dispatched to the site, and walked and walked, with red coloring and smelling, and drinking off in the entrance.

Due to reasonable grounds for recognition, it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking in a manner that contains the whole amount of a drinking measuring instrument four times at around 00:55, around 01:00, around 01:05, and around 01:10 on the same day.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's request for measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. The actual survey report;