A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 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 a Bolf Cabriet 2.0 TDI BI car.

At around 14:15 March 10, 2019, the Defendant came to turn to the left from E to F building-free turn.

In this case, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to thoroughly drive the motor vehicle in accordance with the signals and signals.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to turn to the left in violation of the signal, and caused the victim G (the age of 43) driver's H rocketing car that was placed in accordance with the new direction in the opposite direction to the defendant on the opposite direction to the right side of the victim's G (the age of 43) to rapidly turn to the right side in order to avoid the defendant's car, and subsequently, caused the driver's car parked at that place to shock.

In the end, the Defendant, by the foregoing occupational negligence, sustained injuries, such as duplicating and closing a duplicating, including two lupages that require approximately four weeks of medical treatment, but did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, such as aiding the victims, and escaped.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Reports on traffic accidents and reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents;

1. A report on internal accidents (related to the violation of signalling of Ma1 Vehicle as the place of accident, the signal system and the cause of accident);

1. CCTV of a D building;

1. A medical certificate;

1. An accident site photograph;

1. The following circumstances recognized by the fact-finding inquiry reply (Road Traffic Authority) and the place of this case are rounded to and from the sixth line, namely, the vehicle was normally in operation on the opposite line with green signal at the time when both the direction signals for driving the damaged vehicle and the Defendant’s direction signals were used. The Defendant confirmed that he was green signal.