A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (U.S.) and Violation of the Road Traffic Act (U.S.) were the persons engaged in driving of B B B cargo vehicles. On Nov. 7, 2015, the Defendant was obliged to pay a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving the said cargo vehicles around the south-dong Police Station No. 668, South-dong, Incheon, south-dong, south-dong, along the direction of the Southern-dong Police Station at the entrance of the Southern-dong Authority, along the five-lane away from the shooting distance range of the Southern-dong Police Station at the entrance of the Southern-dong Authority, while driving the motor vehicle along the five-lane road at the direction of the Southern-dong Police Station. In such a case, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving the motor vehicle, was obliged to take a duty of care in advance by driving the motor vehicle by driving

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to change the car line while driving it on the four-lanes, and received the part adjacent to the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven by the victim C (W, 48 years old) who was driving on the four-lanes.

Defendant 1 caused injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in need of approximately two weeks’ medical treatment due to such occupational negligence, and escaped without immediately stopping a vehicle owned by the victim and without taking measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though the said vehicle was damaged by a repair cost of approximately KRW 2,319,168.

2. On November 24, 2015, the Defendant damaged public documents, at the office of the traffic survey department of the Southern-dong Police Station located in 668, Nam-dong, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, for the same reasons as the above 1.3., on the ground that he was subject to the second investigation conducted by E in the circumstances surrounding the traffic survey department, and on the ground that he was subject to the examination protocol of the suspect interrogation (the first time) prepared by the circumstances E prior to the examination of the Defendant, thereby impairing its utility by reducing the examination protocol (the first time) and damaging documents used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol of the police statements with respect to C.