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

On September 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) while driving a E Car on the front of D, at the Government-Si, on the front of D, on September 17:09, the Defendant thought that the victim G (the age of 30) who was driving a FV-crated vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle would have driven the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and stopped the vehicle in front of the victim’s vehicle in accordance with the vehicle stop signals; and (b) made the victim’s vehicle stop at the front of the victim’s vehicle in front of the vehicle; and (c) told the victim to the effect that “the vehicle is immediately driven.” The victim responded to “the vehicle in front of the vehicle or smartphone, the vehicle in front of the victim’s vehicle,” and returned to the victim’s vehicle again.

Accordingly, the victim proceeded in the future and stopped on two-lanes, and then coming from the vehicle to the center of the road that is lowered from the vehicle, the victim, and the defendant tried to kill the victim by shocking the victim with the vehicle of the above car, and then the victim was shocked at a rapid speed by driving the speed of the above car rental vehicle to the maximum speed.

As a result, the Defendant, using a vehicle with the intent to kill the victim, was shocked by the victim, but the victim's body was sponsed to the Bosp of the Karen vehicle, and did not commit an attempted crime with only the victim's bodily injury, such as the sprinking of the sphere and the sphere of the sphere, which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The second written protocol of interrogation of the defendant against the defendant by the prosecutor's suspect against the defendant stated to the effect that "the defendant thought that he/she may kill the victim and shocked the victim" in the above protocol (the face of 120 pages) is made by the prosecutor's repeated leading questioning, and thus there is no voluntariness of statement. However, the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., the defendant, as the case of this case on September 26, 2015.