The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a driver of a CE car.

On February 5, 2014, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 17:50 on the 17:50th of February, 2014, and driven the two-lane road in front of the Sejong National Library, which is located in the Sejong Central Library, at a speed of about 10 kilometers per hour in accordance with the national library from the bank of the government office, the central line is installed, the vehicle is large, and the entry prohibition sign is installed on the road, and thus, the Defendant has a duty of care not to walk over the central line to the opposite direction.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle driving seat of the E X-sports vehicle, which is driven by the victim D while proceeding normally in opposite parts due to negligence beyond the central line.

Therefore, the victim suffered from the damage of the scopic scopic scopical scopty that requires treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

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

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Punishment to be suspended: Fine of 300,000 won;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion and determination of suspended sentence under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., first offender, details of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime

1. The accident of this case’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion occurred due to an inevitable cause or event that the center line cannot be carried out due to the relation with a sign on the vehicle driving ahead of the Defendant’s driving vehicle. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the center line is invaded under the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. Roads with lanes installed in violation of the provision of the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act.