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 AHD car.

On August 30, 2013, the Defendant was driving the said car at around 19:18 and proceeded ahead of the 186 tin road from the ginseng street to the bus terminal.

The Defendant had a U-turn to proceed with the opposite line, and since there was a center line of yellow solid lines, there was a duty of care to make a U-turn at the permissible point of U.S. drivership.

Nevertheless, the front part of the victim C(M, 74 years old) driving in the opposite vehicle line due to the negligence of the U.S. by neglecting this, was received as the front part of the Defendant's car.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as pressing the upper right to the right, for about seven weeks of treatment, due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant and C with the police officer;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents According to Relevant Acts concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is limited to the defendant's liability for the reason of sentencing, but only agreement is reached with the victim, the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, the defendant does not have the same criminal record, the defendant does not have any criminal record for the suspension of execution, and the defendant's age and occupation are determined as ordered by taking into account all the normal data revealed in the trial process such as the defendant'