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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a low-speed car B.

On April 25, 2015, the Defendant driven the above car at around 14:20, and continued the D cafeteria in front of the D cafeteria in Yong-nam, Yong-gun, Yongnam, to a strong slope from the breath of the lower court.

In other words, since the separation cost is set up at the center of the road, there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle to the person engaged in driving business in accordance with the direction of the central separation zone.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and took part of the front part of the victim E(the 41-year-old truck) trucking in the opposite direction while driving in one lane between the left side of the central separation zone and driving in one lane. The Defendant was able to take part of the front part of the victim E(the 41-year-old truck) trucking in the opposite direction.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by such occupational negligence, sustained injury to the above victim E, such as chest spelke, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment, and injury to the victim G (the 41-year-old passenger) who is the passenger of the above spelter, such as an open head in detail as to which medical treatment for about three weeks is required, and suffered injury, such as chest spelke, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment to the victim H (the f0-year-old passenger) who is the passenger of the Defendant’s car.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Actual condition survey report, on-site map, and evidence and photographs of the scene of a traffic accident;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to medical certificates (E), medical certificates (G), and medical certificates (H);

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and

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

1. Selection of alternative imprisonment without prison labor;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that it is difficult to apply the sentencing criteria as it is for the case where the reasons for sentencing are mutually concurrent crimes.

Although the defendant's negligence is not minor, the defendant's negligence is recognized.