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

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

At around 12:20 on May 6, 2020, the Defendant driven the said car, and led to the left turn at a speed that cannot be seen from the “heat level” side of the “heat level,” the front road to the intersection of the Olsan-si in the following city.

Since there is a place where the median line and the median line are installed along the intersection where the vehicle signal apparatus is installed, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to safely operate the vehicle by maintaining the wheel line, such as accurately operating the steering wheel and brake system of the vehicle, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and failed to properly operate the steering direction and brakes, caused the collision of DNA-learning cars driven by C, which was directly driven by the Central Separation of Road, due to its shock.

Accordingly, even though the Defendant, by negligence in the course of business, destroyed the above central separation zone equivalent to approximately KRW 2,733,00,000 for repair charges, and scattered fugitives, such as the strike, on the road, did not immediately stop and take necessary measures.

Summary of Evidence

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes on vehicles, etc. to the scene of the accident involving entry of the police interrogation protocol of the accused in the statement made by the accused in the police interrogation protocol of the accused in the statement made by the police as to C, traffic accident investigation report, investigation report, investigation report (victim's hearing of the statement), written estimate of the investigation report

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the Defendant’s crime of this case is committed by the injured party who committed the instant crime by breaking the central line, was committed by the central separation unit, and the central separation unit was committed by the injured party against whom the central separation unit was set up.