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

except that 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 a car i40.

On October 18, 2012, the Defendant driven the above car on the 19:17th day of October, 2012, and changed the course to four lanes while driving along three lanes along the 315.6km down at the west Coastal Road in the Yae-ri, Pae-ri, Pae-ri, and the 315.6km down at the west.

In such cases, the driver has the duty of care to check whether there is a vehicle in the four-lanes by checking the front side and the left and right of the driver, and if it is likely to impede the normal passage of other vehicles in the direction of the change, he/she has the duty of care to not change the course.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not check the Funst Motor Vehicle that was driven by the Victim E (the 65-year-old) while driving a four-lane and did not change the course to the four-lane, and the part as the left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-down part of the Defendant’s 140 passenger cars.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused serious injury to the victim, such as influoral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral and cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spons that need continuous rehabilitation treatment in the future and cannot be performed without help from others for daily life and life maintenance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Part of the statement concerning G in the police statement;

1. Partial entry of a report on the analysis of automobile accident engineering;

1. A comprehensive analysis of traffic accidents;

1. Blucs and videos;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. According to the evidence of each photograph, it appears that the rocketing vehicle was not exposed to the black image, and the Defendant appears to have proceeded with the rocketing vehicle at a very rapid speed following the Defendant’s vehicle. While the Defendant alleged that the rocketing vehicle was on the side, the Defendant’s statement of the witness is not consistent with objective circumstances, but consistently proceeded with four-lanes.