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.

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a C-A-hurd motor vehicle.

At around 01:50 on September 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven the said car and driven the said car to turn to the left at the designated site of the D Driving, which tried to turn to the left at the designated site of the D Driving, while driving the road in front of the agricultural cooperative, which is located in the 46th of the original city, from a gold-free street outflow to the shooting distance of the site in the gold-free street. (b) The Defendant discovered the vehicle in front of the agricultural cooperative, which tried to turn to the left at the designated site of the road. (c) On the other hand, the Defendant stopped the said car in front of the said vehicle, and (d) expressed a desire to turn to the above low-speed car to the front.

Accordingly, the victim F(53) who was on the top of the operation of the above low-est car was in conflict with the defendant, and the victim F(53) was in conflict with the defendant, and the body was pushed out from the next window, and the head window of the defendant's above-mentioned car was flured by the defendant.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to safely drive a vehicle after checking whether there is no person who gets on the vehicle by checking the front side and the left side of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did so and did not verify whether the injured person was able to catch the Defendant’s car and fasten the Defendant’s car, but without properly ascertaining whether the injured person was able to draw, and continued to drive the vehicle on a timely basis, and the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle operation on the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle operation chief, which was led from the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle operation, and caused the victim to fall off to the Defendant and the floor by being towed from the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle operation on the highest top of the vehicle.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence during the two-day medical treatment, and at the same time, did not take measures to rescue the victim and prevent danger on the road and ensure smooth traffic flow, even though the Defendant damaged the above low-priced car owned by the victim to enter the repair cost on the road, thereby causing danger to road traffic.