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

except that 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

On August 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a estst-wing truck with C, a cargo vehicle with C, while driving at Kimcheon-si, the Defendant was in the front side of the said cargo vehicle, while driving at the right side of the victim D(54 years old) driving, which was going directly from the opposite opposite lane due to occupational negligence going beyond the central line, while driving at the right side of the said cargo vehicle in the front side of the said cargo vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant by such occupational negligence inflicted injury on the victim D, such as salt, tension, etc. in the right hand part of the right hand, and suffered injury on the victim F (the age of 47) who was on board the said taxi for about four weeks in need of medical treatment, such as the closure of a single set of dunes other than the 2-day lapsyll, and on the victim G (the age of 11) for about two weeks in need of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D and H;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;

1. Each written diagnosis and written estimate;

1. On-site map and each traffic accident site photograph;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of comprehensive traffic accident analysis;

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso of Article 3 (2) and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of alternative imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, asserts that the defendant did not have invaded the central line at the time of the occurrence of the case, and that the taxi driven by the victim D has invaded the central line.

In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant d's statement, testimony attitude, and comprehensive traffic accident analysis report, etc., the accident of this case is committed by the Central Line.