On February 24, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a period of eight months in imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry in the Sungnam Support for the Friwon of Suwon Friwon.

3.4. The decision became final and conclusive.

On November 26, 2010, at around 20:20, the Defendant, at the place of aggregate extraction located in the former North Korean Office C, and at the site of aggregate extraction located in the latter North Korean Office C, the victim D ( South Korea, 46 years old) was defective and put a body to the body, followed by getting a dangerous object, carried a stop on the E-Ip vehicle driver's seat, which is a dangerous object.

Accordingly, the victim was found to have continuously defective talk and put a glock installed on the roof of the driver's seat, and the defendant was driving the above vehicle at a volume of 50 meters from the departure of the above vehicle, and the victim was injured by cerebral blood transfusion, etc. requiring about 8 weeks medical treatment from the right bend side to the right side.

Accordingly, the defendant injured the victim as a dangerous object, which is a motor vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F in the third public trial records;

1. Statement made in D in the protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G, F, and D;

1. A written petition;

1. A place where emergency medical services are to be performed;

1. Previous convictions: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes after inquiring about criminal history and reporting the results of previous convictions;

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: (a) the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion and the reason for sentencing on Article 39(1) of the Act on the Handling of Concurrent Crimes; (b) there is no criminal intent because the Defendant was unaware of whether the Defendant would have sold the instant vehicle to the vehicle at the time of driving the vehicle; (c) however, in light of the fact that the Defendant was placed on the window immediately next to the driver’s seat operated by the Defendant, and the victim was posted twice twice on the roof of the instant vehicle by hand, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant was unaware of whether the victim was being sent to the instant vehicle.

The defendant is found guilty.