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

around 12:00 on November 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) operated an arm’s length distance (B) at the Hanju-ro 258, Goju-ro 258 (Haak-gu Haakdong); (b) operated an arm’s length of LG car at the central line; (c) followed the Victim C’s franchise of HG car (D) and had a risk of harming the Defendant’s vehicle.

The Defendant: (a) obstructed the front of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle; (b) reported the Defendant to the police by putting the Defendant’s front window for a passenger car;

As a result of the dangerous driving, the driver started his own car and proceeded about about 20 meters with the damaged person's vehicle to be fastened to the vehicle, and the victim was injured by the vehicle, which is a dangerous object, for about 3 weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. C Legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. Criminal video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to arrest and report the occurrence of a case and report on internal investigation (written diagnosis of a suspect C);

1. Relevant Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Judgment on the assertion of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding an order to attend a lecture or an order to provide community service

1. The defendant and his defense counsel presented the result of video analysis by the video analysis research institute of the Act as a result of video analysis by the video analysis institute, and the victim different from the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant who was seated in the driver's seat and went to the left seat did not become a victim.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by taking account of the aforementioned evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant had dolusent intent on the part of the Defendant, even though he was aware of the existence of the victim who gets off and resisted with a motor vehicle of the Defendant, leading the victim to the motor vehicle.