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

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

[criminal history] On October 21, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of 2.5 million won of a fine for a crime of violating road traffic laws in the Daegu District Court Port Branch on October 21, 201, and a summary order of 1.5 million won of a fine from the 1st common military court of the Navy on June 22, 2009 to the same crime.

[Criminal facts]

1. Although Defendant 1 violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions, Defendant 2 driven Dpoter cargo under the influence of alcohol content 0.178% in blood, from the 5km section to the C 3rd distance in the same Gu, around December 28, 2017, on the roads adjacent to a gratary river located in the south-gu Sea-do Port at the port of port on December 28, 2017, even though it violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions.

2. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a DPoter cargo vehicle.

On December 28, 2017, the Defendant driven the above cargo while under the influence of alcohol, as described in paragraph (1) around 22:24, the Defendant driven the above cargo and driven the three-lane road in C-W in the south-gu of the port of port, south-gu, and driven the three-lane road from the side of the Steel Management Corporation, along two-lanes from the side of the Steel Management Corporation.

At all times, signals, etc. are installed on the front door, so in such cases, the driver has a duty of care to reduce the speed and to prevent accidents by taking well the other vehicles' attitudes in the signal, etc. and the front door.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant, while negligent in driving in the same direction, received the part behind the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle of the victim E-driving in front of the foregoing cargo vehicle in front of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, and led to a sudden collision of H Kac Truck in front of the foregoing vehicle in front of the said vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant is against the victim E and the victim I, respectively, who was on the move-out vehicle due to the above occupational negligence.