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. On March 17, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1.5 million won in imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court). On July 6, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of 1.5 million won in a fine for the same crime at the same court on July 6, 2009, and on September 16, 2010, to a suspended sentence of 6 months in imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On April 22, 2018, the Defendant driven BM7 car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.206% alcohol concentration from the 3km section of the same Gu to the 3km-ro, Daegu-ro, 306, where the trade name in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu is unknown.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking driving at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

2. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle BM7 vehicle in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (or the injury) and the Road Traffic Act (or the injury).

On April 22, 2018, the Defendant operated the said SM7 car around 00:10, and continued three lanes from the roads on the four-lanes in the Seogu Daegu-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul to the four-lanes of the “Dal Foreign Department,” the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the horizontal four-lanes from the other four-lanes

At the same time, in the same lane of the defendant's running direction, the passenger E (WW, 59 years old) was stopped in accordance with the new subparagraph. In such a case, the driver has a duty of care to ensure the necessary distance to avoid the collision with the vehicle driving vehicle by thoroughly operating the front-time speed and accurately manipulating the brake system in order to avoid the collision with the vehicle driving vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not accurately operate the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called the front part of the above-mentioned passenger vehicle in front of the above SM7 vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant committed the above occupational negligence.