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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a bicycle.

At around 11:00 on June 16, 2012, the Defendant driven the bicycle, and proceeded with the bicycle-only road located in 770, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, with the mosp kidsping slope.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a bicycle has a duty of care to safely drive the bicycle on the right side of the center line and to prevent accidents by safely driving it by checking well the left side of the center line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the Defendant’s bicycle running in the opposite direction by the negligence of breaking the central line, and the Victim C (Nam, 64 years old) driving a bicycle driving in the opposite direction, and suffered approximately 13 weeks back to the floor the Defendant’s bicycle riding, and the Defendant suffered the left-hand pelle and the mouths that require approximately 13 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A written statement of C and D;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Determination on the defendant's assertion of on-site photographs and recording records

1. The Defendant asserts that there was no fact that the central line was invaded at the time of the instant accident, and denies the facts charged.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted, namely, ① the victim stated in the investigative agency and this court that “the location of the accident in this case is a sudden stroker, and the defendant was faced with the injury in this case since the defendant tried to commit a crime against the central line and the right side.” The above statements concerning the circumstances of the victim’s accident are relatively consistent and specific, there is no reason for the victim to make a false statement in order to gather the defendant. ② The defendant also calls with D, the victim’s children following the accident, and ② the victim’s children, and the victim’s two bicycles, which are the accident site, exceed the brea line that is attached to the brea line.