However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On June 26, 2017, at around 17:14, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with the highest speed of about 140 km from the area of Busan, at a speed of about 140 km from the area of the road, and the two-lanes in front of 13.6 km from the area of the highway 2nd parallel to the area of the road.

At the time of driving on an expressway, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering and operating the steering system and the steering system well, in such cases, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this, while driving the vehicle in the first way of the Defendant’s running direction, anticipated that the vehicle in the second way turn on the right direction, and operated the steering gear rapidly to the right side, led to the victim’s negligence in the course of business that led four-lanes in the same direction as that of the victim’s DNA driving, which led four-lanes on the left side of the vehicle in the above Defendant’s driving.

Accordingly, the Defendant added approximately KRW 198,815,40 to the repair cost by means of the replacement of the above Sknife vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A traffic accident report (1) a actual survey report;

1. Response, etc. to traffic accident investigation and analysis results;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant in the investigation report (vehicle for reference) and his defense counsel asserted that the F is not negligent since the accident occurred in the course of avoiding the sudden drive in the future of the defendant's vehicle. However, the defendant alleged that there is no negligence on the defendant's vehicle. However, in light of the summary of the above evidence, the following points recognized by comprehensively considering each evidence, i.e., driving on

F 운전 차량이 피고인이 주행하던 2 차로로 차선변경을 하기 위해 방향지시 등을 켠 사실은 있으나 차선변경을 한 사실은 없는 점, ② 피고인은 이 사건 당시...