except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a e-cub vehicle B.

On July 4, 2016, at approximately 02:25, the Defendant proceeded at approximately 20 km from the side of the lucular region to the Mac-dong of Daegu on July 4, 2016, along the three-lane distance from the side of the lucular region.

At the time, traffic control is carried out by signal, etc., so the person engaged in the driving of motor vehicles has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by keeping the front door and the left door in accordance with the new code.

Nevertheless, due to the negligence of neglecting this and going against the signal, the Defendant was found to turn the said intersection to the front circulation road from the right edge of the road by the victim C (the 51-year-old driver) who is going to the right edge from the right edge of the road in accordance with the new line, and the Defendant was found to have immediately discovered the DNA bargaining car at the right edge of the vehicle of the victim due to the failure to avoid it.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above occupational negligence, sustained bodily injury on the part of the victim in need of medical treatment for about two weeks, and at the same time escaped without any necessary measures such as providing relief to the victim, even though the victim’s vehicle was damaged to the extent equivalent to KRW 374,90, such as the replacement of the victim’s vehicle to the extent that the repair cost would be 374,

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the actual condition of traffic accidents, diagnosis certificates, and estimates;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to the crime, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of failing to take measures after destroying and damaging property);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows, and the age, character and conduct of the defendant.