A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of one hundred thousand won.

However, the above imprisonment for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 18, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Western Branch of the Daegu District Court.

1. On December 13, 2019, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting a drinking measuring instrument over about 16 minutes on the front side of the Daegu Western-gu, Daegu-gu, and on December 23, 2019, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument for about 16 minutes, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling from the Defendant’s entrance, smelling on the face, making it possible for him to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, while driving a rash car under the influence of drinking.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

As a result, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drunk driving or the prohibition of refusal to measure drinking more than twice.

2. On December 13, 2019, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act: (a) around 23:40 on December 13, 2019, the front way of “F” located in Seogu Daegu-gu E was driven along the two-lanes of “F” in the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of roads

At the time, vehicles are parked at the edge of the road at night, and in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the front side and the left side and the right side in the driver of the vehicle, and accurately manipulating the steering direction and the brake system.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was parked on the right side by negligence without properly examining the right side and the right side, and the part on the right side of the I SM5 car, which was owned by the victim H, was under the front part of the Defendant’s car.

Ultimately, the Defendant committed the above occupational negligence.