A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 19, 2017, the Defendant, at around 13:00, is not in progress even though the Defendant, who is a driver of D Otoba, was a direct signal to the Defendant while driving D Otoba, E (50 cc) this Fabastro vehicle.

The driver tried to drive the driver's vehicle, which is a dangerous and dangerous object, to drive the driver's vehicle.

Since then, the defendant driving a van, driving along the two-lanes along the two-lanes, and driving even on the rear side of the victim's driver's license. After changing the lane into the first one, the defendant changed the lane into the one, and changed the speed into the two-lanes, and changed the two-lanes on the one hand.

As a result, the Defendant got the victim to suffer approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment by shacking the left part of the front part of the passenger car driving by the Defendant, and causing the victim to suffer approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment, and damaged the victim’s b.290,000 won of water supply, such as the replacement of the hacker.

Accordingly, the defendant carried a dangerous article with the victim, and at the same time carried a dangerous article and damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Blue image data of black boxes;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Articles 258-2 (1), 257 (1) (a point of special injury) and 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion was stopped on the way in order to avoid a scambling, and they did not drive a retaliation.

2. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant immediately overtakened the victim’s vehicle.