except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving the two-class passenger vehicles.

On September 22, 2018, the Defendant driving the above knife vehicle around 18:40 on September 22, 2018, and was proceeding from the fishery knife area to the same agency.

Since the place is at night and there is a center line of yellow solid lines at the time, in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to live well in the front line and to safely drive the motor vehicle to prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and went to the left at the opposite line due to the negligence of the left-hand turn at the center of the center, and brought the DD driving of the victim C(E, 39 years old) into the front part of the above knife car.

As a result, the Defendant suffered, by such occupational negligence, the injury to the victim C, such as salt, tensions, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, the injury to the victim E (the 32 years old) (the 32 years old), who is the winners of the said Radr car, such as the 10th left 8th left gate, which requires approximately five weeks of medical treatment, and the injury, such as the 4 and 5th left gate, which requires approximately five weeks of medical treatment to the victim F (the 65 years old) who is the winners of the said Radr car.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of each traffic accident report, on-site photographs, and video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Selection of alternative imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the sentencing criteria of the suspended sentence do not present a separate processing criteria for the ordinary concurrent crimes. Therefore, the sentencing criteria in this case cannot be applied directly.

Provided, That when the sentencing criteria are applied, the recommended-type traffic accident shall be the general traffic accident.