A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 31, 2015, the Defendant driven Drocketing taxi at around 00:55, and stopped on the two-lanes between the three-lanes after the lapse of the E located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

At the time, the place was in depth, and the drivers who want to get a taxi in a bus stop were in three lanes.

The Defendant refused to take a passenger on the ground that he is a stringr, a driver, and the victim opened a taxi back despite opening a door to the string of the cab, the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, was in excess of about 10 months from the 10th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as salt, tensions, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court (Statement on the seventh public trial date);

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. G statements;

1. A traffic accident report (1) (1) and a traffic accident report;

1. Application of the F of the diagnostic certificate and accident-related photograph-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1)(i) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of punishment recommended according to the sentencing guidelines] General Injury (the scope of general injury): In a case where an intentional injury is committed between February and one year: In a case where the defendant who is a taxi driver is aware that the injured person who is a passenger was placed in the back of the taxi, but is aware that the injured person was placed in the back of the taxi, the risk of the act is not significant, and the criminal liability is not provided for in this Act, such as denying the intention of the injured person before the examination of evidence is completed.

However, this case is judged to be an injury caused by dolusent intentional negligence committed in the absence of mental and physical training, such as receiving farming-out operations immediately before the accident, and the intention of the late injury is recognized.