However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the above sentence shall be executed.

1. On January 1, 2015, the Defendant violated the Automobile Management Act: (a) on the part of the police officer on the part of the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant, he acquired the C C physical straw-man car owned by his name in his name in his name and in his name in his name and in his name and in his name, from his name and in his debt repayment name; and (b) on the part of the police officer, the Defendant did not register the transfer of

2. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Road Traffic Act (Measures Taken after Accidents), and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), followed the first line by the first line from the side of the Ganwon Broadcasting to the Ganju Factory, by driving the string-man car listed in paragraph (1), which was not covered by mandatory insurance, from the shooting distance in front of the Japanese apartment, located on the upper day of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

It is an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal apparatus, and since the intersection is installed from the governance point to the intersection, a person engaged in driving motor vehicles has a duty of care to safely operate the front line while driving on the right side of the central line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and continued to proceed along the crosswalk between the Japanese apartment and Gwangju bank, and when he was negligent in breaking the center line of the point where the crosswalk was passed between the Japanese apartment and the Gwangju bank, the part of the front part of the victim D(36 years old) drive E in the case of the victim D(36 years old) who was on the left part of the center line of the center line. The Defendant continued to receive the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and continued to receive the steel structure installed between the roadway and India.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim D due to the above occupational negligence during approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, damages the above-mentioned taxi owned by the victim unlimited partnership F to the extent that the amount equivalent to KRW 2,570,621 is equal to the repair cost, and damages the back of the taxi owned by Gwangju Metropolitan City.