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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving vehicle C.

On April 19, 2016, the defendant around 13:44, the 3-distance from the mine village in the 64-gile-ro mine in the 1st place in the Sincheon-gun, Sincheon-gun, the Sincheon-gun, the Sincheon-gun, the Sincheon-gun, the Sincheon-gun, the Sincheon-gun

Since there is a three-distance intersection, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents due to the following reasons: (a) a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by thoroughly operating the front-distance and accurately operating the steering and steering devices.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to enter the intersection as it was due to the negligence of leaving the e-mail of the victim D (year 76) who was proceeding directly from the e-mail village room at the time of the mine village due to the negligence of leaving the e-mail, and did not discover the e-mail of the above e-mail of the above cargo vehicle and shocked the front part of the above e-mail.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from serious injury, such as a cage cage cage cage and a prop cage cages, etc., which requires approximately six months of medical treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Application of investigation reports (including reports on serious injury, etc.), investigation reports (verification of the degree of injury, treatment status, etc. of suspectD), and statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the Defendant did not yet agree with the victim even though the injury suffered by the victim was considerably serious due to the instant traffic accident, and the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was 0.031% at the time of the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant continued to drive the said C Poter cargo vehicle without stopping the Poter cargo vehicle even after the Defendant was able to drive the said C Poter cargo vehicle.