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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of B Mascen vehicles.

On December 18, 2017, the Defendant driven a above 17:25, and turned back the side roads within the south-si C and D “D” complex from the entrance to the cafeteria.

At any time, there is a duty of care to ensure safe operation by checking the direction of progress and properly operating the brake system to a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle as a place of work, at any time and at any time, having access to the workplace.

Nevertheless, while the Defendant neglected to do so and did not continue to do so, the Defendant received the victim E (the age of 57) who was coming from the entrance of the workplace, from the front of the Defendant’s driving.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim by occupational negligence, such as cutting the body of dubs, which requires approximately seven weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor for a crime;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] General Traffic Accidents No. 62(1) [No person in charge of special sentencing] / [Determination of sentencing] / [Judgment of sentencing] / Defendant’s negligence that focuses on the degree of injury to the victim, and that it is difficult to recover sufficient damage due to the purchase of liability insurance only: Provided, That it is against the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the crime, the first offender, the first offender, and the fact that the victim’s refusal to deposit his/her personal information could not reach the deposit due to his/her refusal to notify the victim of his/her personal information.