except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 14, 2012, at around 20:40, the Defendant driven a Cbea cruise car, and proceeded with the above crosswalk from the south-gu Southern-gu, Gwangju to the south-gu, the speed of about 30km from the south-gu, the south-gu, Seoul to the south-gu, the lower court’s speed.

At the time of the crosswalk where a signal apparatus was installed, pedestrians had the duty of care to safely drive the road by reducing speed and checking the right and the right of the person engaged in driving the road.

Nevertheless, due to negligence of neglecting this, the defendant found the victim D (the age of 45) who dried the crosswalk to the right side of the direction of the defendant's proceeding at late later, and operated the crosswalk, but did not avoid it, and had the victim go beyond the road after receiving the victim's right chest from the front part of the defendant's vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the same occupational negligence, such as "damage to the stoveal ethy and visually damaged, etc.," etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each medical certificate and each disability medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the actual survey report;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 3 (1), the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the Selection of Punishment, and Article 268 of the Criminal

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the grounds of conviction and sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for the suspended sentence) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant and his/her defense counsel, stating that "the defendant has entered the crosswalk for the immediately advanced pedestrian signals, since the defendant passed the crosswalk for the immediately advanced pedestrian signals. At the time of the accident, the defendant does not have any violation of the duty to protect pedestrians since the victim governance the crosswalk when he/she

However, the victim is present as a witness in this court and "as a signal apparatus".