Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 26, 2019, the Defendant driven a low-priced car with B (17:50) around 17:1, 2019, and led to two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes between the two-lanes of the common-purpose gate and the common-purpose gate in the common-purpose gate in Youngcheon-si.

Inasmuch as rocketing car prior to the same direction was followed by Crocketing car, there was a duty of care to thoroughly keep the front-out time and secure the safety distance to the person engaged in driving service.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to take the mobile phone at the front time, and instead neglected to do so, received the following spreads of the Defendant’s car in front of the car.

The Defendant sustained, by its occupational negligence, the injury to the victim D (the 70-year-old driver), who is a driver of a rocketing passenger car, such as salt ties for about two weeks in need of medical treatment, and the injury to the son E (the 51-year-old victim E (the 51-year-old), such as clifal and clifal base in need of medical treatment for about two weeks, and the injury to the son F (the 65-year-old victim) in need of medical treatment for about six weeks, such as clifal clifal, etc. in need of medical treatment for about six weeks, and the injury to the son H (the 71-year-old victim) in need of medical treatment for about twelve weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act dealing with common concurrences;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The fact that the defendant's negligence, who was unable to keep his cellular phone out of the front line while driving a high speed police station on the grounds of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, is heavy, and all three passengers on the back line of the damaged vehicle have suffered heavy importance.