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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a B Costa Car.

1. On September 14, 2013, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) without a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol with no knowledge of blood alcohol concentration on September 14, 2013, the Defendant driven a approximately 1 km section from the front of the residence of the Defendant of the Busan Dong-gu C to the road before the same Gu Dance, and driven the said road along the one lane in the direction of the safe intersection in the direction of the slowly.

In such a case, the driver of a motor vehicle had a duty of care to properly operate steering the steering gear and brakes in a way that well sees the steering room, and proceeds without breathing the steering system under the influence of alcohol, and by negligence, the part of the back part of the victim E (the age of 61) driving in the front line of the vehicle driving of the motor vehicle was received as the front part of the motor vehicle driving vehicle of the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim E, such as catitis that requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence, and injury to the victim G (V, 37 years of age) who was aboard the said taxi, such as catitis requiring medical treatment for about three days.

2. The Defendant caused a traffic accident as described in the above paragraph (1) of the Road Traffic Act, from around 20:30 on September 14, 2013 to around 21:03 on the same day, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting a drinking gauge on several occasions from an slope H, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as a large range of walking, a large amount of walking, a large amount of bathing, and a large amount of walking conditions, such as a narrow distance, and accordingly, he refused the demand for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1..