Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

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 March 27, 2014, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving a B car, is driving the said vehicle on the front distance of the D cafeteria located in Jung-Eup Si, at around 22:20 on March 27, 2014, along one-lane between the two-lanes from the same side of the D cafeteria and the two-lanes from the same side of the D cafeteria.

The left-hand left-hand side of the proceeding direction has been left-hand.

Since there is a place where traffic is not controlled, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely drive by checking whether there is a vehicle crossing by reducing speed or temporarily stopping.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to turn to the left without neglecting it, and found the Flue CA 110C 110C occ oba in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the front part of the victim’s vehicle. The Defendant was not negligent in finding the Flue 110cc oba in front of the sampling from the 24th apartment.

As a result, the Defendant suffered serious injury to the victim, such as the upper end of the left-hand body in need of treatment for not less than six months, due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Medical opinion, general medical certificate, medical certificate of a post-disabled disability, and medical opinion;

1. Application of 16 copies of field photographs to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Punishment concerning Criminal Facts, Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution provides that the victim’s punishment is not agreed with the victim under Article 62(1) that it is disadvantageous to the defendant, but Article 51 of the Criminal Act that is expressed in the records and arguments of this case. However, the defendant’s vehicle is the time of committing the crime of this case and the mistake is divided in depth. The defendant’s vehicle is the comprehensive automobile insurance, the economic situation of the defendant is not good, the defendant is the primary offender, and the defendant