However, 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 the operation of a set-off cargo vehicle with CPoter II.

On September 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven the said car at the 67-lane-dong community service center in order to drive the said car at the SP intersection in order to maintain the speed of 18:35 on September 29, 2018; and (b) neglected to perform the duty of e-mail at a remote speed of 4-lanes depending on the two-lanes of the e-learning road; and (c) neglected to perform the duty of e-mail at a remote speed of 5-lanes; and (d) did so at the same direction as the Defendant’s occupational negligence moving the e-learning car from the e-learning lane to an elementary school; (d) at the same time, the Defendant suffered damages to the said 6-day e-learning car by spreading the front left side of the e-learning cargo; and (e) incurred damages to the said e-mail victim, such as e-mail exchange of tensions and tensions necessary for treatment; and (e) the said 3-day, the said e-day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A survey report on actual condition and photographs on the scene of accidents;

1. Application of three copies of a written diagnosis ( drivers and visitors) and written estimates for repair;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 148 and Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime (the point of failing to take measures after an accident) of the relevant Act concerning the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: