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 who is engaged in driving a cruise car.

On June 19, 2016, around 01:33, the Defendant was proceeding in the direction of the East-gu Doctrine in the direction of the East-gu Doctrine-ro.

At this point, there is a blind-distance intersection with yellow fluoring signal. In such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to drive the motor vehicle in such a way that it does not interfere with traffic by accurately manipulating the steering and brakes to enter the intersection.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, even though viewed the light of a motor vehicle running toward the intersection from the right side of the Defendant’s moving toward the intersection before entering the intersection, was due to the negligence of running it as it was, and the victim E (the age of 38) who is going to the right side of the arm’s length distance from the right side of the cruise motor vehicle was shocked by the front part of the Frididi vehicle driven by the victim E (the age of 38).

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt and tensions, in need of treatment for about two weeks by occupational negligence as above, and at the same time, the Defendant destroyed the victim’s friendly car with a repair cost of KRW 5,301,440, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as stopping the vehicle, and providing relief to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each internal investigation report and investigation report;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of failing to take measures after destroying and damaging property) concerning the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending sentence].