However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a C-Scar.

On October 17, 2017, the Defendant operated the above car at around 17:00, and led to the intersection of the national highway No. 762 prior to 31, Cheongcheon-gun, Cheongcheon-gun, Cheongcheon-gun, to the west-do.

Although the defendant does not overtake another vehicle in the intersection and is required to drive safely, the defendant did so at the place where the other vehicle is obstructed to overtake the above vehicle and overtaking the other vehicle at the place where the latter is prohibited.

For that reason, E E-learning car was rapidly suspended by victims D(28 tax) who had been Madju.

In addition, the car was followed by the interview loan.

G Poter cargo cars driven by F were shocked by the car of the interview theory.

A car in the above interview loan has re-shamped the I SM5 car driven by the victim H(65 years) beyond the opposite lane due to its shock.

The Defendant: (a) by such occupational negligence, injured the victim D with salt, tensions, etc. of the 2 week clatty; (b) injured the victim J(Y, 57 years old); (c) injured the victim J(J, 57 years old) of L3 above the 12 week L3 week clatum; and (d) injured the victim H by the clatum of the 2 week clatum of the clatum.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement of F, H and J;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, report on a traffic accident (1, 2) (1), photographs at the scene of the accident, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the ordinary concurrence and the choice of punishment;

1. The Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code suspended the execution of the instant traffic accident caused the instant traffic accident by negligence, which caused the instant accident to go beyond the two lanes opposite to the two-lane road, and the degree of damage to the victims caused by the occurrence of the accident is not easy.

(b).