Defendant

An authorized transfer (prosecution) and Kim Jong-young (Trial)

Law Firm Tae-tae, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

To order the accused to provide community service for 120 hours.

The Defendant is a driver of (vehicle number 1 omitted) BMW vehicle.

On January 18, 2015, at around 17:15, the Defendant, without using the direction, etc., at the front of the exit ○○○○○○-distance 2 from the road in front of the exit ○○○○○-distance, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and without using the direction, etc., he changed the vehicle from the third vehicle in operation to the second vehicle in which the victim was in operation. Accordingly, the victim Nonindicted 1, the driver of the vehicle in the second vehicle in the (vehicle No. 2 omitted), who is the driver of the vehicle in the (vehicle No. 2 omitted), turns the head of the vehicle above the head of the vehicle, and warning the horn, the Defendant sent 30 seconds to prevent the victim from driving his vehicle on his own, and driving the vehicle in front of the victim so that he could stop the front of the vehicle. Thereafter, the victim stopped the vehicle in large 1-2 meters.

As a result, the Defendant, using a dangerous vehicle, thereby causing injuries to the victim Nonindicted 1 and the victim Nonindicted 2, who was accompanied by the victim Nonindicted 1 and the damaged vehicle for about two weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, damaged the damaged vehicle in an amount equivalent to KRW 6,751,800 for repairing expenses.

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A statement of Nonindicted Party 1’s accident circumstances (written statement)

1. Report on internal investigation (report on the attachment of black boxes or video images);

1. Each written diagnosis and written estimate;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment of Carrying or Damage of Dangerous Articles)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Whether the defendant was intentionally recognized;

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not have the intention of causing injury or damage to property, since the vehicle was stopped in order to check whether there is anything wrong with the defendant's vehicle when the victim turns the headlight above and warning the horn by sounding the horn.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is recognized that the defendant had intention to injure or destroy property. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable.

① The Defendant changed the course to the second line in which the victim was in operation, without turning on the direction direction, etc. on the three-lanes on the road of the three-lane. The victim turn on the headlights and sounded the horn.

② The location of an accident was the section adjacent to the intersection, which was widened from the third to the fourth line, and the road was connected to the right side of the front bank, so it was possible to stop on the side line or the road connected to the right side of the delivery. Nevertheless, the Defendant stopped the vehicle on the second line because it was long after the victim sound the horn.

③ While the Defendant was stopping 30 seconds, the Defendant did not ask the victim about the check of the vehicle out of the vehicle, raising the level, or sounding the horn. At the time, the Defendant’s wife on board the Defendant’s vehicle talks with the Defendant several times as “as soon as possible, as soon as possible, I do, and “I am out of the vehicle,” and the Defendant did not answer.

④ Since then, the Defendant continued the vehicle into two-meter two lanes, and stopped the vehicle so that the Defendant’s wife can grow up as “fish.”

⑤ At the time of the second stopping of the Defendant, there was no front vehicle in the vehicle line of the Defendant at the time of the second stopping, and there was a space for stopping the vehicle on the Indian lane.

(6) After an accident, the Defendant only made a speech to criticize the victim, such as “to grow as being urgent,” and did not ask the victim whether the victim has a horn and the reason for raising the headlights is to inform him/her of whether it is abnormal on the Defendant’s vehicle.

(7) Circumstances that may not obstruct the defendant's vehicle operation, or other peculiar circumstances, shall not appear.

2. Whether the Defendant’s vehicle constitutes “hazardous goods”

In light of the circumstances at the time of the accident, such as the occurrence of the accident, the speed of each vehicle at the time of the accident, the degree of damage and injury, and the boarding of the family of the defendant vehicle, the defense counsel asserts that it is difficult to view

Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to human life or body when using the thing in light of social norms in a specific case. Such determination criteria also apply where a motor vehicle causes danger to human life or body or damages another person’s property.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the vehicle of the defendant constitutes dangerous articles. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defense counsel is rejected.

① After stopping 30 seconds, the Defendant stopped at a 2-meter 1st century, while driving a two-meter 2nd line, the Defendant stopped the vehicle so that the Defendant’s wife can grow up as “fish.”

(2) At the time when the defendant was trying to depart again after stopping, there was no prior vehicle driving along the motor vehicle of the defendant.

③ The victim’s vehicle is at the start of the vehicle and the speed of the vehicle is not fast, but the victim seems to have been trying to speed the vehicle when changing the vehicle as the space for changing the vehicle is secured.

(4) In light of the fact that, immediately after a vehicle collision, it is difficult to deem that the shock caused by an accident is light in light of the fact that the collision is protruding and that the shock of a vehicle is considerably large, etc.

⑤ The victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who was accompanied by the victim Nonindicted 1 and the victim Nonindicted 2, suffered injuries in salt, tensions, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks.

6. A victim's vehicle was damaged to have an amount equivalent to KRW 6,751,800 for repair costs, considering that it is a high-priced external vehicle.

7. The injured party vehicle is a SUV car with a large body compared to the injured party vehicle (BMW) which is a general vehicle. However, it is difficult to view that the injured party vehicle has a considerable difference in the weight, size, etc. of the vehicle with five passenger vehicles.

3. Whether victims are injured;

The defense counsel asserts that the victims did not suffer injury due to the accident of this case. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the victims suffered injury under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act due to the accident of this case. Accordingly, the defense counsel's above assertion is not acceptable.

① On January 19, 2015, the victims received a diagnosis that the victims need to receive two weeks’ medical treatment, from an injury to the salt, tension, etc. of the drilling Hospital.

② The victim Nonindicted Party 2 was under medical treatment due to external stress disorder, and was diagnosed on January 19, 2015 that the instant accident and the Defendant’s excessive behavior led to the aggravation of the victim’s symptoms, thereby making the victim’s hospitalization and absolute stability necessary.

③ On January 19, 2015, the victim Nonindicted Party 1 was treated with damp-style care due to symptoms, such as “the pain in front of the front line and the right part of the front line, the fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluornasium,” and “the victim Nonindicted Party 1 was treated with a similar symptoms at the Masan Hospital on February 24, 2015.

④ On January 19, 2015, the victim Nonindicted Party 2 received damp-type treatment, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.;

⑤ The victims were determined by the △△ Hospital as the herb drugs called fluoral fishery (fluoral fishery due to marbing and blood transfusion, and the breast, fluoral, distribution, etc. are associated with the open increase and the open increase was made).

6) It is difficult to deem that the victim Nonindicted 1 exaggerations the symptoms caused by an accident, such as informing him/her of the fact that “in the process of disc treatment” in the traffic accident statement.

The Defendant stops a vehicle, causing a traffic accident, causing the victims to inflict an injury, damage to property, and the nature of the crime is not good. In addition, the victims did not pay damages to the victims, and there is a record of punishment for the crime of injury: Provided, That it is difficult to view that the victims’ degree of injury is serious. In addition, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case are considered, and the sentence is the same as the order, considering the scope of the recommended sentence of the

Judges Mad Cow