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 July 10, 2018, the Defendant operated CK5 car volume at CK5 around 10:50 on July 7, 2018, and changed the car line from the straight line to the left left turn turn turn turn to the IC on the first day at the intersection of the ecological park as in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Therefore, the driver of the DNA bargaining vehicle, who was trying to turn to the left at the left line, caused a defect in the victim E and the driver of the defendant's vehicle in large voice, and caused the right side of the victim's vehicle two times with the defendant's vehicle. The victim's vehicle stops rapidly in the front of the victim's vehicle, and damages the victim's vehicle in light of the climatic clif, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, and at the same time damaged the victim's vehicle to repair the 830,828 won.

Accordingly, the defendant injured the victim with dangerous things and damaged the property at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Domestic investigation reports (No. 8 times a year), and each investigation report (No. 11, 15, 17 times a year);

1. A written diagnosis and written estimate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to black booms video CDs and photographs;

1. Articles 258-2 (1), 257 (1) (a point of special injury) and 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act is considerably poor in light of the background, method, and content of the instant crime. However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime while recognizing all of the instant crimes, the degree of injury and damage caused by the instant crime is relatively little, the victim agreed with the victim, the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant, and the Defendant committed the instant crime.