beta
Text
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 of the final judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving C, Orala in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
At around 14:20 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant driven the two-wheeled vehicle, which led to bypassing the two-wheeled vehicle in accordance with one way from the direction of the center center of North Korea, Dongh-dong, the front of the tri-dong, Samsan-dong, the one-way image complex, and the other side of the two-way road.
Since the place is where a central line is installed, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving the motor vehicle without harming the central line.
Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant neglected it without a driver's license, and neglected it, caused injury to the victim, such as locking and scambling, scambing, scaming, scaming, scaming, and tensions, which require approximately five weeks of treatment, to the front part of the vehicle driven by the Defendant, on the right side of the victim D (in the front part of the vehicle driven by the Defendant, 46 years old) in front of the 1-dong image complex, 1-dong image complex, apartment 46 years old.
2. At around 14:20 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant driven a 3-to-be drive without a driver’s license, under the influence of alcohol 0.174% of the blood alcohol concentration in the section of approximately 500 meters from the Do in front of the 1stale of the boom-dong in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, to the next road in front of the 1stale of the 1stale.
3. The Defendant, who violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, was a holder of Oral Ba, was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance on the road. However, the Defendant operated an Oral Ba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, as described in paragraph (2).
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant;