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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of C Poston C Postoned in (state) and is a person who has the driving force of drinking twice with a fine of KRW 2 million on April 11, 2007, with a summary order of KRW 1 million issued by the Seoul Central District Court on November 1, 2012 as a crime of violating Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on April 11, 200, and with a summary order of KRW 1 million on November 1, 2012.

1. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant driven the Poter vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.161% from the 700-meter radius from the 1127 subway line 5 subway lines located near the station, to the 34-lane 21, as it was transmitted in Songpa-gu Seoul, at around November 25, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol content of blood at about 0.161%.

2. The Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury caused before the risk) (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) led to the following five-lanes: (a) the road located 34-lane 21, as the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, in the direction of the fall market, which is located 34-lane 21, along the direction of the fall market, from the long-distance flooding area to the long-distance flooding area of the fall market.

At the time, there was a new wall time and a crosswalk where signal lights are installed on the front side, so in such a case, the driver of the vehicle had a duty of care to look well at the front, left, and left well, to accurately operate the steering gear and the brake system, and to prevent the accident in advance by safely driving in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant neglected it in the state of drinking, and found that the vehicle signal, etc. was changed to the red light, and did not properly operate the brake system, and went as it is, due to occupational negligence, the victim D(46) driving 520d car in front of the above vehicle, which led the Defendant to a panion behind the vehicle of the Defendant, which was in front of the vehicle.