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

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of 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 car in CELA.

On March 6, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at around 12:40 on March 6, 2016, and tried to drive the car at a speed of about 60km from the right side of the front side of the Rabri-ray, which is on the principle of the Rabri-ray D.

At this point, there was a center line of yellow solid lines, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving the vehicle safely by safely operating the vehicle without breaking the center line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and operated the center by breaking the center line without neglecting it, and was driven by the victim D (40 Do) who was driving from the right side on the side of the opposite side of the madle on the road in the center of the center line, and received the front part of the left side of the driver's vehicle by the E-Ndra Ra, which was driven by the Defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as the 12 week therapy, due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, a survey report on actual condition, field photographs, and medical certificate;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Aggravated Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Article 62(1) of the Act) provides that the Defendant’s act of causing a traffic accident by negligence in the central line, resulting in a relatively serious injury to the victim, but the Defendant is led to confession and the primary offender, resulting in subscription to a comprehensive insurance, and thus compensation for the victim is deemed to have been made. The Defendant appears to have been receiving medical treatment with extreme dynamic disorder, and existing light view, and the Defendant’