However, 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 a rocketing vehicle B.

On January 17, 2014, at around 20:50, the Defendant had a duty of care to look at the front side of the new apartment zone in the direction of the new fire fighting and fire fighting, and to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and the steering system of the motor vehicle in the direction of the new fire fighting and to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and tried to see the part of the victim C (V, 41 years old) driver’s Maz vehicle in the front part of the Defendant’s driving, following the Maz vehicle in the front part of the victim E (V, 27 years old) who stops in the front of the Maz vehicle in the front of the Maz vehicle due to its shock, and then see the part of the Maz vehicle in the front of the Maz vehicle in the front of the vehicle.

The suspect injured the victim C by such occupational negligence for about two weeks of injury, such as cloud salt, etc., the injury of the pelvis and tension to the victim E, the injury of the pelvis part requiring treatment for about two weeks, the injury of the pelvis part of the pelvis part requiring treatment for about two weeks, the injury of the pelvis part, tensions, etc., requiring treatment for about two weeks, and the injury of the pelvis part, the injury of the pelvis part requiring treatment for about two weeks to the same H (n, 33 years of age), the same I (n, 4 years of age), the same J (n, 1 in South, 1 in South, 3 years of age), and K (n, 3 years of age), and the injury of the pelvis part of the pelvis part requiring treatment for about two weeks, and the victim G (n, 59 years of age) did not take measures such as repair charges, 7, 94, 1646, 197 and 34 of the above pel.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. L.W.