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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On September 15, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of 2.5 million won for a crime of violating road traffic laws in the Daejeon District Court's Support on August 7, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of 3 million won for the same crime from the same support on August 7, 2009, and was sentenced to a summary order of 1 million won for the same crime on January 14, 201, the Defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act on two or more occasions by being sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year for the same crime from the same support on January 14, 201, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year for two or more occasions, and on June 23, 2015, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of

7.1. The above judgment becomes final and conclusive and currently during the period of suspension of execution.

[Criminal facts]

1. Violation of traffic Acts on roads;

A. On September 25, 2015, around 10:13, 2015, the Defendant driven a car with C low alcohol content of about 0.114% in the 4km section from the front of the East-gu Yacheon-gu Yacheon-gu, Namcheon-gu to the front road of the Yacheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Namcheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. At around 16:45 on the same day, the Defendant driven the above low-speed car with alcohol content of 0.162% at the front parking path of the same 101-dong apartment.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Road Traffic Act is a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle with the above low PP.

The defendant operated a car at the time of the day, such as Paragraph 1(b), and proceeded with the parking path in front of the same Dong-friendly apartment 101.

However, the driver had a duty of care to safely operate by accurately operating the steering and steering the steering wheel and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and thereby caused the damage to the Defendant’s right-hand side of the E-learning car owned by the victim D, which was parked on the right-hand side, to use the pentum part of the above pentum part before the right-hand side of another car, and to use the said pentning car as the repair cost of KRW 764,113.

3. The defendant violates the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation.