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

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 18:20 on August 6, 2015, the Defendant was negligent in performing the duty of care to maintain the safety distance with the front vehicle while driving the Era vehicle in the same direction while driving the vehicle at a speed of about 110km from the front vehicle in the speed of 7 km from the west to the west of 7 km in the direction of the west, Seogsan Expressway Highway located in the west-si, the front road, and driving the vehicle at a speed of about 7 km from the west. The Defendant was negligent in performing the duty of care to maintain the safety distance with the front vehicle and driving the vehicle safely in the same direction while neglecting the duty of care to maintain the safety distance with the front vehicle. The Defendant did not avoid any accident that shocks the structure of the centralized separation zone by the victim D (the age of 28). The Defendant’s passenger vehicle in front of the passenger vehicle and suffered a serious injury to the bottom of the frame that requires the victim to treat for more than 3 months due to the shock of the vehicle.

The victim argued to the effect that the passenger car of the victim was obtained first from the victim's passenger car in front of the cargo vehicle and the passenger car of the victim was shocked by the central separation zone structure, but the defendant's negligence and the circumstances of the accident cannot be acknowledged as alleged by the victim without changing the indictment according to the principle of non-defluence. The victim's legal statement of F of the witness F (the body of 6 to 7 seconds after the first big shock) who was accompanied by the damaged passenger car was faced with the central separation zone structure, and the victim's statement (the accident circumstance of this case was as stated in its reasoning, the distance between the defendant's cargo vehicle and the damaged passenger car was maintained, and there seems to have been no possibility that the defendant's cargo was damaged, and there seems to be no possibility that the defendant's cargo was damaged.