A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment 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.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

At around 14:10 on December 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) mispercept that Dunastya car driven by the victim C (the 57-year-old) in the front of Samsung Bio-dong, Samsung Twit-dong, which had been driven by the victim C (the 57-year-old), did not intentionally turn on the part of other vehicles, although it could not be operated due to the string of the other vehicles; (b) repeated three times of the launch of the Eunsty cargo vehicle driven by the Defendant, which is a dangerous object, and damaged the victim’s car by taking part of the 2,264,852 of the repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (including the table of evidence Nos. 5, 6, and appended documents);

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Part concerning the rejection of prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the confession and the agreement that only is made with the victim);

1. Around December 14:10, 2013, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant mistakens that the victim C (the 57-year-old age) driven in the front of Samsung Bio-dong Samsungdong, which was driven by the victim C (the 57-year-old) did not intentionally turn on the part of the other vehicle, even though the vehicle cannot be operated due to the string of the other vehicle; (b) the Defendant sawd the victim’s vehicle from the Eststun cargo driven by the Defendant at the driver’s seat to the vehicle of the victim, “the victim, who was driven by the driver’s seat, “the string of e.g., whether the e., the e., the e., the e.,

2. The above facts charged are cases in which a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim. According to the written agreement submitted by the defendant, it is evident that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the victim on September 2, 2014. Thus, the prosecution against the above facts is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.