A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around June 4, 2020, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (drinking) driven a large-scale fluorb in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.153% in the 1km section from Daejeon Dong-gu through Dong-dong, Daejeon to the front intersection of the D Hanwon located in the same Gu C from Jun. 4, 2020.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Road Traffic Act is a person who is engaged in driving service of Obane, the same as that described in paragraph (1).

On June 4, 2020, the Defendant driven the above Oba while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.153% in light of 18:25 on June 4, 2020, and continued the intersection of D Hanwon, such as those described in paragraph 1, to proceed at the speed of about 40km from the eba-line off at the eba-line from the eba-line off.

The location is an intersection that is not supported by traffic control. At the time, there was a motor vehicle entering the above intersection and making a left-hand to the left-hand turn from the front e-distance e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant neglected to make a left-hand turn at the front of the above Oral Ba, which was owned by G F, the victim F, who was in the right-hand turn at the front of the above Oral Bab, followed the right-hand side of G, which was the victim F, and shocked into the front part of the

Ultimately, the Defendant damaged the said car by occupational negligence to cover KRW 1,491,521.

3. The owner of a motor vehicle violating the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act shall not operate a motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance, and the defendant is a holder of an objection, such as the statement in paragraph (1).

Nevertheless, the defendant operated the above Oral Ba which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place mentioned in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police of H. H.