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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a CSP car.

On July 7, 2017, the Defendant followed the front road of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D from the edge of the university, taking into account of the road around 08:37.

Since the location is an intersection where signal lights are installed, in such cases, the person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle in accordance with the traffic signals on the front side and prevent the accident from occurring.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to change the driving signal on the front side to the stop signal, and caused the front part of the FOE (60) driving by the victim E(60) who was to turn to the left at the right right-hand turn from the opposite side of the said intersection due to the negligence of entering the said intersection.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by negligence in the course of performing the above duties, i.e., cutting down the upper right-hand streke, which requires approximately 14 weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report, a medical certificate, and a statement on the occurrence of a traffic accident;

1. Application of the investigation report (the details of receipt, CCTV images, and black stuff images)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (2) 1 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 Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act lies in the accident of this case by gross negligence that the defendant entered the intersection in violation of the signal, the victim's serious injury was incurred due to the accident of this case, and the fact that the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim is considered disadvantageously. The fact that the defendant recognized the criminal facts of this case and misjudgments the defendant, the vehicle operated by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive insurance, and the defendant is punished for the past criminal punishment.