A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 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 July 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle in the 2-lane Cpoter in the Bpool on July 27, 2017; (b) attempted to turn to the left close to the first line while driving a two-lane in the Dong-dong in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu; and (c) proceeded at the first lane.

D) On the ground that K5 taxi vehicles experienced the risk of accidents and fluences to the Defendant, the fluoral fluor was fluored, and the fluored change of the fluor line to the above fluoral side of the 2-lane fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on black stuffs;

1. Articles 258-2 and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act relating to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The defendant asserts that Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Order to Attend the lecture [the defendant did not shock the taxi by rapidly changing the bus line with the intention of retaliation when a taxi engineer booms the light, but merely caused an accident by a full-time movement on the car line due to the change of the car line, so there was no intention of injury.

However, in full view of the vehicle operation status, accident circumstances, road conditions, etc. prior to the instant accident, which is recognized by the above evidence (in particular, black image), the Defendant is recognized as having caused the instant accident that the taxi driver would change the car line rapidly and try to enter the taxi in the future.

Therefore, the defendant had dolusent intent to inflict injury on a passenger who gets on a taxi driver or on a taxi with a vehicle which is at least dangerous articles.

The defendant's assertion is accepted.