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.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of the D's other car.

On August 16, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 21:57, and proceeded along the two-lanes in front of the 23-distance intersection south-Eup at Yangju-si along the 23-distance intersection, the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes.

In order to prevent the occurrence of the second accident, the driver of the vehicle took necessary measures after the accident, such as inducing the other other traffic vehicles to another vehicle line, in order to prevent the second accident by the end of the accident, the traffic accidents occurred in the intersection where signal lights are installed, and the accident occurred during the unauthorized crossing, and the F, the driver of the vehicle, took necessary measures.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the signal and neglected the duty of the front week, thereby serving the victim E ( South, 22 years old), and followed the victim F ( South, 36 years old) as the front offender of the said car.

Along with this shock, the victim E suffered a pelumuma, etc. which requires approximately 16 weeks of medical treatment, and the victim F suffered a peluma, etc. which requires approximately 4 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each actual survey report and each report on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. On-site photographs, etc.;

1. Comprehensive analysis of traffic accidents;

1. CDA images;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (F) and (E) of a medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (the crime of the defendant's judgment is continuously conducted at the same place for a short period of time with the same opportunity, and is evaluated as one act at the same place, and thus, there is a relationship of commercial concurrence.

On the other hand, the court can punish the crimes charged with concurrent crimes as concurrent crimes without changing the indictment (Supreme Court Decision 80Do2236 Decided December 9, 1980).